Return-Path: Received: from stargate.chelsio.com ([12.32.117.8]:64910 "EHLO stargate.chelsio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726013AbeLZJqk (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2018 04:46:40 -0500 Subject: Re: IPSec ESN: Packets decryption fail with ESN enabled connection From: Harsh Jain To: steffen.klassert@secunet.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Linux Crypto Mailing List Cc: atul.gupta@chelsio.com, harshjain.prof@gmail.com References: <93ad9333-1e77-58fc-3f47-a967294fe188@chelsio.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 15:16:29 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <93ad9333-1e77-58fc-3f47-a967294fe188@chelsio.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: +linux-crypto On 26-12-2018 14:54, Harsh Jain wrote: > Hi All, > > Kernel version on both machines: 4.19.7. > > Packet drops with EBADMSG is observed on receive end of connection. It seems that sometimes crypto driver receives packet with wrong "seq_hi" value in AAD. See below the dump of assoc data for 1 such instance. > > [  380.823454] assoclen 8th byte 1 clen 1464 op 1  ==> High byte of ESN > [  380.828398] authsize 12 cryptlen 1464 > [  380.832637] dt00000000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 06 ==> Decrypted data seems correct,last byte is proto(06 TCP) > [  380.840215] dt00000010: bf ee 4f 80 a4 7f 2a 50 6a 5a 0b 10 > [  380.846636] ass00000000: 0a bc d3 31 <00 00 00 01> 00 1c e5 ec 0e af 04 69 ==> ESN-Hi = 1 > [  380.854316] ass00000010: a4 fc 08 ad > > Note: If I decrypt the same packet with ESN - Hi = 0. It Decrypt successfully means peer machine has used ESN-HI = 0 while encrypting. > > To debug further we added trace in "xfrm_replay_seqhi". Following was the output: > >  -0     [003] ..s.   380.967766: xfrm_replay_seqhi: seq_hi 0x 1 seq 0x 1ce5ec bottom 0x 1ce5ee replay seq 0x 1ce62d replay window 0x 40 > > 1) Is this an expected variable with ESN enables connection?. > > 2) If packets are supposed to be dropped can't we avoid decryption overhead. > > Following logs are attached > > 1) dmesg log > > 2) debug patch used to reproduce the issue. > > 3) ftace log file > > 4) ip xfrm state list > > > Regards > > Harsh Jain > >