From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
To: John Heffner <johnwheffner@gmail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
steffen.klassert@secunet.com, fweimer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] path mtu hardening patches
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:28:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140113212808.GJ6586@order.stressinduktion.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABrhC0=9ff8aLG4y4gxiGrGBBHvdcWD2pCC3wyLTveKHRySg4A@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:08:22PM -0500, John Heffner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@stressinduktion.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:35:31PM -0500, John Heffner wrote:
> >> My only comment would be not to look to me as the only source of
> >> reason not to include this change. I've been largely disconnected
> >> from Linux development for several years and don't have time to get
> >> into a protracted discussion on this topic.
> >>
> >> FWIW, I still have doubts as to whether this is the best approach to
> >> solving the underlying problem. I still haven't heard any reason why
> >> firewall rules and other administrative best practices, such as using
> >
> > Because we currently cannot easily filter icmp payloads and check whether
> > it is in a response for a local socket or a malicious one.
> >
> >> separate management and forwarding interfaces on a router, don't
> >> practically solve this problem.
> >
> > I don't think this is practiable, especially in times of small devices
> > doing routing (e.g. smartphones).
> >
> >> I'd also be curious to hear what
> >> dedicated routing operating systems do, and why I haven't heard about
> >> widespread fragmentation DoS attacks.
> >
> > My old Cisco didn't honour those pmtu packets (at least in default
> > configuration) and FreeBSD only accepts pmtu information for TCP sockets
> > where it also verifies the sequence number. It does not react to pmtu
> > notifications in response to icmp or udp payloads.
> >
> > Routing path does use the pmtu values on FreeBSD, though. But it is much
> > harder to inject path mtu packets there because, as said, they are only
> > accepted for tcp.
>
> Would it be sufficient to allow Linux to be configured in a way that
> matches FreeBSD's behavior? (I believe you can do this easily with
> stateful firewall rules now, or possibly in the ICMP processing code
> with a sysctl switch.) I feel this would be a much cleaner approach.
Actually, this is part of this series. The hardened path mtu mode provides
exactly that (Patch 3).
But because we cannot switch this on by default, I also protected the
forwarding path. UDP path mtu discovery has been too long available on
Linux and, I guess, a lot of applications, especially running on routers,
depend on that.
Greetings,
Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-13 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-09 9:01 [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] path mtu hardening patches hannes
2014-01-09 9:01 ` [PATCH net-next v4 1/3] ipv4: introduce ip_dst_mtu_maybe_forward and protect forwarding path against pmtu spoofing hannes
2014-01-09 9:01 ` [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] ipv6: introduce ip6_dst_mtu_forward and protect forwarding path with it hannes
2014-01-09 9:01 ` [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] ipv4: introduce hardened ip_no_pmtu_disc mode hannes
2014-01-13 19:25 ` [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] path mtu hardening patches David Miller
2014-01-13 19:35 ` John Heffner
2014-01-13 20:42 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2014-01-13 21:08 ` John Heffner
2014-01-13 21:28 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa [this message]
2014-01-13 21:50 ` John Heffner
2014-01-13 22:03 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2014-01-13 22:15 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2014-01-13 22:48 ` Florian Westphal
2014-01-13 23:18 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2014-01-13 22:12 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140113212808.GJ6586@order.stressinduktion.org \
--to=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=johnwheffner@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox