Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:11:33 -0500 From: Matthew Grooms <mgrooms@shrew.net> To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Broken IPsec + enc +pf/ipfw Message-ID: <54491AA5.9060602@shrew.net> In-Reply-To: <5448DEE8.40100@yandex.ru> References: <544535C2.9020301@shrew.net> <544566D2.40303@FreeBSD.org> <544569CF.2060905@shrew.net> <54457599.4060102@yandex.ru> <54458001.6000507@shrew.net> <544611F8.9070403@yandex.ru> <20141021160643.GB2787@1970jan1-epo.ch> <54468B43.40602@shrew.net> <20141021183919.GD2787@1970jan1-epo.ch> <54480578.6020106@shrew.net> <5448DEE8.40100@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/23/2014 5:56 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 22.10.2014 23:28, Matthew Grooms wrote: >> On 10/21/2014 1:39 PM, Kyle Williams wrote: >>> On Tue Oct 21 11:35:15 2014, Matthew Grooms wrote: >>>> Hey Kyle, >>>> >>>> Thanks for lending a hand. I tested a few myself last night but had no >>>> luck. This morning I received an email off list that pointed to a patch >>>> that was merged to 10 stable. It sounds promising ... >>>> >>>> Log: >>>> Merge r263091: fix mbuf flags clash that lead to failure of operation >>>> of IPSEC and packet filters. >>>> >>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-stable-10/2014-March/001111.html >>>> >>>> >>>> I won't have a chance to try it until after business hours tonight, but >>>> will report back to the list with my results. Alternately, I assume you >>>> also could upgrade to 10.1-RC2 as the MFC for this patch happened back >>>> in March. I may go this route myself and then bump up to RELEASE in a >>>> few weeks when it happens. >>> >>> r263091, r266800, and r272695 together on 10.0-RELENG works for me. >>> >>> I didn't test r263091 by itself. >>> >> >> I couldn't get a kernel to boot without crashing with the single patch, >> (r263091) applied. With all three patches, I can also confirm that the >> problem is resolved. >> >> And some additional info: I also experimented with using gif + IPsec >> transport mode instead of enc + IPsec tunnel mode. I was hoping that >> changing the configuration would work around the issue. Unfortunately, >> gif + IPsec transport mode was exhibiting the same type of problems that >> enc + IPsec tunnel mode was, even with a patched kernel ( pf doesn't see >> the traffic on the gif interface so return traffic gets blocked for lack >> of a state entry ). > > Since you applied r266800, you now may apply r272394. > I see. Thanks for your work and the information. I reverted back to using enc + tunnel mode, so I don't need the gif support at the moment. I was just just reporting feedback since I thought it may be useful to someone that stumbles across the thread in the future. Out of curiosity, will/have all these bug fixes be applied to the 10.x branch? It's pretty painful to use as a pf firewall w/ IPsec in it's current state ( 10.0-RELEASE ). -Matthew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54491AA5.9060602>