IPv6 duplicate address detection erroneously marking address as duplicate when a host receives its own multicast packets?

[Sam Cannell]

[c&p from my email to lkml; I was asked to forward it here too. This
occurs on the stock kernels in Debian Lenny and Ubuntu Karmic, as well
as a 2.6.33 I built myself]

Hi,

I've been having some trouble with ip6 duplicate address detection in a
Linux VM (under XVM on OpenSolaris). It seems that the ethernet bridge
in XVM sends a host's own multicast packets back to it, which the
duplicate address detection code in linux decide that another host on
the network is using the same address.

For instance, running:

router4:~ # ip addr add fe80::216:36ff:fe4e:461c/64 dev eth0


I get the following output in tcpdump:

router4:~ # tcpdump -nevpi eth0 ip6
tcpdump: listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96
bytes
12:33:03.755897 00:16:36:4e:46:1c > 33:33:00:00:00:16, ethertype IPv6
(0x86dd), length 90: (hlim 1, next-header Options (0) payload length:
36) :: > ff02::16: HBH (rtalert: 0x0000) (padn)[icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6,
multicast listener report v2, length 28, 1 group record(s) [gaddr
ff02::1:ff4e:461c to_ex, 0 source(s)]
12:33:04.551772 00:16:36:4e:46:1c > 33:33:ff:4e:46:1c, ethertype IPv6
(0x86dd), length 78: (hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length:
24) :: > ff02::1:ff4e:461c: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, neighbor solicitation,
length 24, who has fe80::216:36ff:fe4e:461c
12:33:04.551998 00:16:36:4e:46:1c > 33:33:ff:4e:46:1c, ethertype IPv6
(0x86dd), length 78: (hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length:
24) :: > ff02::1:ff4e:461c: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, neighbor solicitation,
length 24, who has fe80::216:36ff:fe4e:461c
^C
3 packets captured
3 packets received by filter
0 packets dropped by kernel


And dmesg says:

router4:~ # dmesg
[ 371.024287] eth0: IPv6 duplicate address fe80::216:36ff:fe4e:461c
detected!


And the address sits in 'tentative' mode:

router4:~ # ip addr show dev eth0
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast
state UP qlen 1000
link/ether 00:16:36:4e:46:1c brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.2.128/24 brd 192.168.2.255 scope global eth0
inet6 fe80::216:36ff:fe4e:461c/64 scope link tentative flags 08
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever


This happens for link-local and global scope address, both when they try
to auto-configure and when set by hand:

[ 463.500328] eth0: IPv6 duplicate address
2404:130:0:1000:216:36ff:fe4e:461c detected!
[ 732.428312] eth0: IPv6 duplicate address
2404:130:0:1000:216:36ff:fe4e:461c detected!
[ 883.812328] eth0: IPv6 duplicate address 2404:130::3:2:1 detected!


I'd happily put this down to a failing in XVM, however the stateless
autoconfiguration RFC (4862) states that the stack shouldn't decide an
address is duplicate based on receipt of a neighbor solicitation message
that it sent itself:

5.4.3. Receiving Neighbor Solicitation Messages
[...]
If the source address of the Neighbor Solicitation is the unspecified
address, the solicitation is from a node performing Duplicate Address
Detection. If the solicitation is from another node, the tentative
address is a duplicate and should not be used (by either node). If
the solicitation is from the node itself (because the node loops back
multicast packets), the solicitation does not indicate the presence
of a duplicate address.


Assuming my understanding of the RFC is correct, this suggests to me
that duplicate address detection in Linux is being a little too hasty to
mark the address as invalid. Thoughts?


Thanks,

Sam Cannell

[Brian Haley]

Post by Sam Cannell
I've been having some trouble with ip6 duplicate address detection in a
Linux VM (under XVM on OpenSolaris). It seems that the ethernet bridge
in XVM sends a host's own multicast packets back to it, which the
duplicate address detection code in linux decide that another host on
the network is using the same address.

<snip>

Post by Sam Cannell
I'd happily put this down to a failing in XVM, however the stateless
autoconfiguration RFC (4862) states that the stack shouldn't decide an
address is duplicate based on receipt of a neighbor solicitation message

<snip>

Post by Sam Cannell
Assuming my understanding of the RFC is correct, this suggests to me
that duplicate address detection in Linux is being a little too hasty to
mark the address as invalid. Thoughts?

Well, my initial reaction is XVM is doing the wrong thing looping-back
multicast packets. You can try the following (untested) patch, I can
only confirm it compiles.

-Brian


Add a check for looped-back DAD packets on Ethernet interfaces.

Signed-off-by: Brian Haley <***@hp.com>

diff --git a/net/ipv6/ndisc.c b/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
index da0a4d2..33a7212 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
#include <linux/net.h>
#include <linux/in6.h>
#include <linux/route.h>
+#include <linux/etherdevice.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
@@ -800,6 +801,16 @@ static void ndisc_recv_ns(struct sk_buff *skb)
}
}

+ if (dev->type == ARPHRD_ETHER) {
+ struct ethhdr *eth = eth_hdr(skb);
+ if (!compare_ether_addr_64bits(
+ dev->dev_addr,
+ eth->h_source)){
+ /* looped-back to us */
+ goto out;
+ }
+ }
+
/*
* We are colliding with another node
* who is doing DAD
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to ***@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Herbert Xu]

Post by Brian Haley
Well, my initial reaction is XVM is doing the wrong thing looping-back
multicast packets. You can try the following (untested) patch, I can
only confirm it compiles.

I agree, whatever is looping the packet back should be fixed.

And if we are going to filter them out at our end, then it should
be done below IP.

Thanks,

[David Miller]

From: Herbert Xu <***@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:41:40 +0800

Post by Herbert Xu

Post by Brian Haley
Well, my initial reaction is XVM is doing the wrong thing looping-back
multicast packets. You can try the following (untested) patch, I can
only confirm it compiles.

I agree, whatever is looping the packet back should be fixed.

Ethernet does not send multicasts to itself, so we're definitely not
going to cater to this XVM behavior.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to ***@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html