[Swan-dev] Set keyingtries to 1 for Opportunistic Encryption connections
andrew.cagney at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 14:15:47 UTC 2020
Can I attribute these test failures to this discussion?
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
000 "north-eastnets/0x1": ike_life: 3600s; ipsec_life: 28800s;
replay_window: 32; rekey_margin: 540s; rekey_fuzz: 100%; keyingtries:
000 "north-eastnets/0x1": retransmit-interval: 9999ms;
000 "north-eastnets/0x1": initial-contact:no; cisco-unity:no;
fake-strongswan:no; send-vendorid:no; send-no-esp-tfc:no;
-000 "north-eastnets/0x1": policy:
+000 "north-eastnets/0x1": policy:
000 "north-eastnets/0x1": v2-auth-hash-policy: SHA2_256+SHA2_384+SHA2_512;
000 "north-eastnets/0x1": conn_prio: 24,24; interface: eth1;
metric: 0; mtu: unset; sa_prio:auto; sa_tfc:none;
000 "north-eastnets/0x1": nflog-group: unset; mark: unset;
vti-iface:unset; vti-routing:no; vti-shared:no; nic-offload:auto;
On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 22:43, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh at mimosa.com> wrote:
> | From: Paul Wouters <paul at nohats.ca>
> | On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | > | I meant "resolved by setting it to 1".
> | >
> | > I don't really understand the issues.
> | A failure shunt is installed after the first keyingtries= fails.
> | If a second keyingtries is started, it will want to install the
> | negotiationshunt. What does it mean when these two shunts are
> | different? It is unclear what we _should_ do.
> | The actual bug seems to be that sometimes, the second shunt comes
> | in without widening to the full IP address. I do not yet know how
> | or when this exactly happens. When it does, pluto installs a second
> | shunt because it is different from the first one (eg proto 0 vs proto 6)
> | then later on when a tunnel is installed, only one shunt is removed.
> OK. That is (I think) a separate discussion that we should have.
> The code I wrote implemented the same logic as your fix. So my change
> is neutral with regard to this issue.
> | > If the shunts fail, except in special cases, and those cases are
> | > undocumented, we should
> | >
> | > - fix the shunts issue (hard, I assume), or
> | We should either fix the shunt issue, or think of removing shunts
> | completely. While shunts give us a little more fine-grained control
> | on what to do during negotiation, some of that is countered by the
> | XFRM larval state anyway, and additionally, there is a _lot_ of
> | complexity with shunts. That makes it tempting to remove.
> I think that this is an important discussion that should be separated
> from this particular bug.
> Among other things, shunts were to prevent unexpected leaks in the clear.
> That seems pretty important. They were also used to mirror kernel state
> in Pluto (it was unreasonable to try to query the kernel whenever Pluto
> needed the information). Unfortunately, the kernel could change the
> kernel's representation without notifying userland.
> It is possible that the design constraints have changed over the last
> decades and a different design might be better. But just slashing
> without careful analysis seems like a bad idea. That analysis must
> not be based on a subset of the cases.
> Such a change might require sysadmins to change firewalls. If so, it
> should not just be slipped into a release.
> | > Here's an add-on to Paul's code [UNTESTED].
> | >
> | > Since it changes starterwhack, something I'm not an expert in, the code is
> | > particularly suspect.
> | I actually changed it in add_connection() so it is independent on
> | whether the parameters came in via whack or via ipsec.conf.
> Right. That's why I didn't suggest removing your change.
> My code intended to implement the same result, but earlier, with a
> more useful diagnostic (I hope -- untested!).
> | > It implements that last policy, I hope.
> | > If one were to delete one line, it would only change a defaulted
> | > keyingtries.
> | Which makes this harder to do because we currently merge in our defaults
> | via libipsecconf/whack interactions. By the time add_connection() is
> | called, what was an implicit default is no longer known.
> Where I made the change, it is known whether this 0 came from a
> default or an explicit assignment. The diagnostic is only generated
> if an explicit assignment is being over-ridden.
> I fear that your code emits too many diagnostics (i.e. where the 0
> comes from default) and that they are not visible.
> That's why I was suggesting my additional change.
> Putting a check in the whack code would be good too. But I don't
> imagine that it is as important.
> Swan-dev mailing list
> Swan-dev at lists.libreswan.org
More information about the Swan-dev