On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 10:07:43AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 02:29, Antony Antony <ant...@phenome.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am hunting a couple of corner cases, IKEv2 rekey initiator failures. > These issues appear when testing clones. Think of 100 IKEv2 Child SAs > under > one IKE SA and rekeying them all. In the test rekey margin and salife are > short. Short values do not matter, because looking back in Tuomo > production > systems logs, with larger rekey margin and saflifetime, I see the same > issues. > > First one is possibly fixed. > > https://testing.libreswan.org/v3.30-418-g2a5319bd84-master/ > ikev2-child-rekey-07-deadlock/OUTPUT/west.pluto.log.gz > > > > ikev2: insert new v2D message to the tail of pending v2D requests > > It's certainly better: > > optimized to send out v2D message before v2_CREATE_CHILD_SA jobs. > Delete would also get a quicker response from the other end, because, > there are no crypto operations i.e. v2DH,KE,nonce to respond to > a v2_INFORMATIONAL request. > > but is it needed?
I noticed sometimes a several rekeys would get queued up. And delete would stay in the queue for longer. I think it is best to prioritize v2D ahead CREATE_CHILD_SA. Also can't think of any side effect of pritorizing v2D. > this queue may have v2_CREATE_CHILD_SA or/and v2_INFORMATIONAL (v2D). > add new v2_INFORMATIONAL, v2D request to the tail of v2D requests, > instead adding to the tail of the queue. > > I'm also puzzled by: yes. It seems necessary for now. May be there could a way to call complete_v2_state_transition(). > if (IS_CHILD_SA_ESTABLISHED(st)) { > /* > * this is a continuation of delete message. > * shortcut complete_v2_state_transition() > * to call complete_v2_state_transition, need more work > */ > pending.cb(ike, st, NULL); Initially I imagined calling complete_v2_state_transition() would be cleaner, however it turned out to be harder. There are too many checks inside complete_v2_state_transition() and success_v2_state_transition() that would fail, or need hacks or fixes. Initiatiing INFROMATIONAL v2D does not have an svm entry or fake md. I am not sure faking all that is worth it. Message ID is already advanced in send_delete() Now I am thinking a lighter version complete_v2_state_transition() is probably ideal this. when completeing an v2D all we really need is the next line. > v2_msgid_schedule_next_initiator(ike); > > Second One seems to harder to trace. Here are the symptoms that I found so > far. Rekaying IPsec fails with the following message and the connections > disappears. If you have auto=route it may come back again. auto=route is a > bandaid. > > Apr 6 13:58:50.367487: | ikev2_child_sa_respond returned > STF_INTERNAL_ERROR > > > > Any ideas on what triggered the internal error? I know one step further. the line shown bellow "EVENT_SA_EXPIRE, timeout in 0 seconds" is the cause. However, I don't why pluto schedule this EVENT_SA_EXPIRE. Did you look a the log? > > Apr 6 13:58:50.367426: "west/68x0" #3699: CHILD SA to rekey #3500 > vanished > abort this exchange > > the internal error seems to caused EVENT_SA_EXPIRE, timeout in 0 seconds > which removed predecessor state before rekey send the message. > > Apr 6 13:58:50.237455: | inserting event EVENT_SA_EXPIRE, timeout in 0 > seconds for #3500 > > Apr 6 13:58:50.230304: | duplicating state object #3606 "west/100x0" as > #3699 for IPSEC SA > Apr 6 13:58:50.226728: | handling event EVENT_SA_REPLACE for child state > # > 3500 > > It seems when replace is hit, code decided to rekey, and also scheduled an > EXPIRE. Usually margin is 70s or so Which is enough to rekey. In this case > it margin end as 0. > > Bellow is link to full log of test ikev2-child-rekey-08-deadlock. I ran it > manually for longer time. It took 58 minutes before this error to occured. > > WARNING: the following log is big 100s Mega bytes, careful when clicking > on > the link in a browser. It is better to download it using wget to read. > > https://swantest.libreswan.fi/s2/ikev2-child-rekey-08-deadlock/OUTPUT/ > west.pluto.log.gz > > I let the test run, it happend twice in about 6 hours. > > Apr 6 13:58:50.367426: "west/68x0" #3699: CHILD SA to rekey #3500 > vanished > abort this exchange > Apr 6 17:49:44.228126: "west/39x0" #18513: CHILD SA to rekey #18320 > vanished abort this exchange > > Looking back in older logs, Tuomo's log, I see the same sequence and > connrection restarting either due to keying tries or traffic. He is > running > with default rekey margin and fuzz, while the test has shorter rekey > margin. Note it is not just because of shorter rekey margin or > salifetime. > > The oldest seems to hapeend in > > "Apr 18 00:57:47 foo-gw pluto[5139]: "antony-ams" #915: Child SA to rekey > # > 912 vanished abort this exchange" > > I am wondering where is the bug? pluto's rekey margin calcuation, or some > other logic forcing the EXPIRE event. _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list Swan-dev@lists.libreswan.org https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev