Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: tcp: drop silly ICMPv6 packet too big messages

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:25:10PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 6:15 PM Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:06:21PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 5:59 PM Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Eric,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 08:46:30AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > While TCP stack scales reasonably well, there is still one part that
> > > > > can be used to DDOS it.
> > > > >
> > > > > IPv6 Packet too big messages have to lookup/insert a new route,
> > > > > and if abused by attackers, can easily put hosts under high stress,
> > > > > with many cpus contending on a spinlock while one is stuck in fib6_run_gc()
> > > >
> > > > Just thinking loud, wouldn't it make sense to support randomly dropping
> > > > such packets on input (or even better rate-limit them) ? After all, if
> > > > a host on the net feels like it will need to send one, it will surely
> > > > need to send a few more until one is taken into account so it's not
> > > > dramatic. And this could help significantly reduce their processing cost.
> > >
> > > Not sure what you mean by random.
> >
> > I just meant statistical randomness. E.g. drop 9/10 when under stress for
> > example.
> 
> It is hard to define ' stress'. In our case we were maybe receiving 10
> ICMPv6 messages per second " only "
> 
> I would rather define the issue as a deficiency in current IPv6 stack vs routes.
> 
> One can hope that one day the issue will disappear.

Aie. I thought you were speaking about million PPS. For sure if 10 pkt/s
already cause harm, there's little to nothing that can be achieved with
sampling!

Thanks for the clarifications!
Willy