-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:15:41 +0100 Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> wrote:
> This suggests that iptables' ECN mask is wrong. It should be using
> 0xfc rather than 0x3f.
Yes, I'm convinced the mask is wrong. However, fixing that would change
the behaviour of already deployed firewalls. It's a thorny situation.
Here's why I conclude the mask is wrong.
Let's take RFC 1349[1], which added the Minimize-Cost bit to ToS. First
off, realise that this conflicts with ECN, that's just part of the can
of worms that is ToS, and it complicates a solution to this issue even
more.
RFC 1349 chapter 3 defines the Type of Service Octet as:
The Type of Service octet consists of three fields:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | |
| PRECEDENCE | TOS | MBZ |
| | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Note how the bit endianness is different than, for example, usual x86
diagrams. I think this is where the wrong mask stems from: the author of
the wrong mask was accustomed to diagrams with a different bit
endianness and ended up confused.
Now let's look at chapter 4 which defines this TOS field from bits 3
through 6:
1000 -- minimize delay
0100 -- maximize throughput
0010 -- maximize reliability
0001 -- minimize monetary cost
0000 -- normal service
And let's compare that to:
# iptables -m tos --help
iptables v1.6.0
[...]
tos match options:
[!] --tos value[/mask] Match Type of Service/Priority field value
[!] --tos symbol Match TOS field (IPv4 only) by symbol
Accepted symbolic names for value are:
(0x10) 16 Minimize-Delay
(0x08) 8 Maximize-Throughput
(0x04) 4 Maximize-Reliability
(0x02) 2 Minimize-Cost
(0x00) 0 Normal-Service
Take a good look at these hexadecimals corresponding to the symbolic
names. They match the byte from RFC 1349 only if you flip the
bit-endianness such that the least significant bit is on the right
(Minimize-Cost has the lowest numerical value). Note that these
hexadecimals are correct; it is only the mask that is wrong.
This is on stretch/oldstable, but the help is no different on
buster/stable. I'll continue with a stretch system, though.
We can make it more concrete. Let's create an iptables rule with
numerical values that matches DSCP CS6, which corresponds to IP
Precendence 6, numerical value 0xC0, where in the terms of RFC 1349 bits
0 and 1 are set in the PRECEDENCE portion of the ToS octet.
# iptables -I INPUT -m tos --tos 0xc0 -j NFLOG --nflog-group 2
Ping it:
$ ping -Q 0xc0 -c 1 10.0.1.1
And take a look at the packet in the PCAP log file of that nflog, with
Wireshark:
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: 10.0.1.133, Dst: 10.0.1.1
0100 .... = Version: 4
.... 0101 = Header Length: 20 bytes (5)
Differentiated Services Field: 0xc0 (DSCP: CS6, ECN: Not-ECT)
1100 00.. = Differentiated Services Codepoint: Class Selector 6 (48)
.... ..00 = Explicit Congestion Notification: Not ECN-Capable Transport
(0)
Total Length: 84
Identification: 0x5029 (20521)
Flags: 0x4000, Don't fragment
Time to live: 64
Protocol: ICMP (1)
Header checksum: 0xd33a [validation disabled]
[Header checksum status: Unverified]
Source: 10.0.1.133
Destination: 10.0.1.1
This proves:
- - That -m tos --tos 0xc0 matches a packet that has 0xc0 in the DS Field
(because this is the only rule in the firewall logging to that nflog
group)
- - That 0xc0 means DSCP CS6, because I believe Wireshark's analysis, it's
been correct in different instances of looking at the DSCP field with
packets generated by several systems.
So that means that the mask 0x3f is a mistake.
But changing the mask to 0xfc will make -m tos --tos Minimize-Cost break
because that is actually one of the ECN bits. I tested it and --tos
0x02/0xfc predictably did not match ping -Q 0x02. Changing the mask to
0xff causes less breakage, but still changes the behaviour on existing
deployments... :-(
Perhaps the best solution is to deprecate the symbolic --tos arguments,
urging everyone to exclusively use the numerical format. Put this in
NEWS so people hopefully notice, perhaps the Release Notes. And then
maybe someday DSCP and ECN will be less broken. Firewalls currently
using symbolic --tos arguments already misqualify ECN and IP Precedence
as well, it's not just DSCP.
HTH,
Peter.
[1] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1349>
- --
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy.
My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEZQCNwiCq4qJXTWzVlp4Bj95s3KEFAl1L3sYACgkQlp4Bj95s
3KFaAggAiffHqD+4Y7xTxyfXJbJSn0TN5cxd+42ffnbgkqlNKonzkxWEr0Hd9EOA
ab9aDzSPGpjeFy1Hzuj9z0SrBUp30zWL3WqRxJTifxkIg9AXrWn9xuG1VgH4t1T+
HTpSrjn/Y5NsaUOBdzkWvumoIOY7NQqHxh2mLOPIg9AGJ4XVGbn5PEi2YHM2OVok
9QaB5wPMeNcVeUv4719vMFkZ+VoycremY7F23OMSBiY+vbQI6AntBOf3sJLDb2qQ
Vjoh7EvR2F28+w+DyK77vqAwbMa/+VGgF+ld5BDCxv0w8h/Q434MdkcTJ8CefSNA
4cx1+SP6nSbOuPLirzhez1VANayTsA==
=eTRc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
