From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 23 10:58:27 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3187705 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from forward4l.mail.yandex.net (forward4l.mail.yandex.net [84.201.143.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "forwards.mail.yandex.net", Issuer "Certum Level IV CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 687AF19E for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:58:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp12.mail.yandex.net (smtp12.mail.yandex.net [95.108.131.191]) by forward4l.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 4EB121440FBA; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:58:17 +0400 (MSK) Received: from smtp12.mail.yandex.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp12.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id CB0BA16A1526; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:58:16 +0400 (MSK) Received: from unknown (unknown [2a02:6b8:0:81f::186]) by smtp12.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id 6gBhChlJ5A-wFYmEdxA; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:58:15 +0400 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client certificate not present) X-Yandex-Uniq: 5b387603-8b7d-4e1a-9f63-b0c7c8605adf DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1414061896; bh=EOMUeZOdlSc1tQOZzdG9drht7X/oWlpm24qEkz3/I0k=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ftOUhVSUGIiYRO+fwA9vk1cRoTYtKd5dHfCJx7789FtMtw3WHU2ttjw5ndAtYIH8i ARTTkVFG9Bfvc/oJ9oLu5q/BjpueOLvDa9m5Xw7kuPmOEeH2cd2tdrLHRLlYzEaDqs njarke7zGvJD5fMOQC3Zr2HGDLY6iRzitJSblbmE= Authentication-Results: smtp12.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru Message-ID: <5448DEE8.40100@yandex.ru> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:56:40 +0400 From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Grooms , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Broken IPsec + enc +pf/ipfw 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> In-Reply-To: <54480578.6020106@shrew.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:58:27 -0000 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. -- WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov