Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:39:45 -0700
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To:        Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
Cc:        freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org, Dmitriy Demidov <dima_bsd@inbox.lv>, Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: keep-state rules inadequately handles big UDP packets	or	fragmented IP packets?
Message-ID:  <49C026B1.8010108@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090317223511.GB95451@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References:  <200903132246.49159.dima_bsd@inbox.lv>	<20090313214327.GA1675@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>	<49BF61E7.7020305@FreeBSD.org> <49BFB9B2.9090909@oltrelinux.com>	<20090317190123.GB89417@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>	<49C01E08.9050709@oltrelinux.com> <20090317223511.GB95451@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:02:48PM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
>> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>> Thinking more about it, i believe that calling reass as an explicit
>>> firewall action is useless, because if ip_reass fails due to lack of
>>> all fragments you are back to square one:
>>> 	what do I do with this fragment ?
>>>  
>> AFAIK ip_reass() never fails: if it's the last fragment it reassembles 
>> the packet and return it, else it queues the fragment for later
>> reassembly.
> 
> Ok then we may have a plan:
> 
> you could do is implement REASS as an action (not as a microinstruction),
> with the following behaviour:
> 
> - if the packet is a complete one, the rule behaves as a "count"
>   (i.e. the firewall continues with the next rule);
> 
> - if the packet is a fragment and can be reassembled, the rule
>   behaves as a "count" and the mbuf is replaced with the full packet;
> 
> - if the packet is a fragment and cannot be reassembled, the
>   rule behaves as a "drop" (i.e. processing stops)
>   and the packet is swallowed by ipfw.
> 
> This seems a useful behaviour, but it must be documented very
> clearly because it is not completely intuitive. Perhaps we should
> find a more descriptive name.

So what is the behaviour when you reassemble a 5K packet,
and then it has to be forwarded out another interface with 1500 MTU.

> 
> Good progress!
> 
> 	cheers
> 	luigi
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49C026B1.8010108>