On 2015-02-24 18:10, Kristof Provost wrote:
> On 2015-02-24 08:05:47 (+0100), Kristof Provost <kris...@sigsegv.be> wrote:
>> On 2015-02-23 17:23:55 (-0800), Davide Italiano <dav...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> The bt you posted suggest this could be stack overflow, probably due
>>> to infinite recursion.
>>> Also, as a wild guess, just looking at the stacktrace, I think this
>>> might be related to the recent ipv6 fragment changes. Try to back them
>>> out, and see if things gets more stable ( r278831 and r278843).
>> That's almost certainly what it is.
> After a bit of fiddling around I've managed to reproduce this locally.
> Essentially we get caught in a loop of defragmenting and refragmenting:
> Fragmented packets come in on one interface and get collected until we
> can defragment it. At that point the defragmented packet is handed back
> to the ip stack (at the pfil point in ip6_input(). Normal processing
> continues.
> Eventually we figure out that the packet has to be forwarded and we end
> up at the pfil hook in ip6_forward(). After doing the inspection on the
> defragmented packet we see that the packet has been defragmented and
> because we're forwarding we have to refragment it. That's indicated by
> the presence of the PF_REASSEMBLED tag.
> In pf_refragment6() we remove that tag, split the packet up again and
> then ip6_forward() the individual fragments.
> Those fragments hit the pfil hook on the way out, so they're
> collected until we can reconstruct the full packet, at which point we're
> right back where we left off and things continue until we run out of
> stack.
> There are two reasons Allan is seeing this and no one else has so far.
> The first is that he's scrubbing both on input and output. My own tests
> have always been done with 'scrub in all fragment reassemble', rather
> than 'scrub all fragment reassemble' so I didn't see this problem.
> The second is that he's got an internal interface with a higher MTU,
> so the refragmentation actually works for him.
> There's an open problem where ip6_forward() drops the defragmented
> packet before the pfil(PFIL_OUT) hook because it's too big for the
> output interface.
> If the last patch of my series (https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1815) had
> been merged as well more people would have been affected.
> One possible fix for Allan's problem would be to tag the fragments after
> refragmentation so that pf ignores them. After all, the defragmented
> packet has already been inspected so there's no point in checking the
> fragments again.
> I have the feeling there's a way to fix this problem and the issue D1815
> tries to fix in one go though. I'll need to think about it a bit more.
> Regards,
> Kristof
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Admittedly, when I switched from using pfSense to vanilla FreeBSD for my
firewall, when I got new hardware and wanted to run bhyve as well, i
just dumped the rules from my pfsense into a file and then started
editing by hand. So the scrub rule was not really a decision I made, but
was inherited from the pfsense.

It is actually my external interface (point-to-point fibre transport
from my basement to the data center) that has the higher MTU (4400),
whereas my internal network is all standard 1500 MTU.

Allan Jude

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to