Development discussion of WireGuard
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Lenski <dlenski@gmail.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: Allowing space for packet headers in Wintun Tx/Rx
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 09:42:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOw_LSHbJ-SwNc8nqFC0KDrY+ah25gfLNyYQf83mb9sSO9=R8A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26fc1c68fa495407b5c4c46a56abdb5dfe639280.camel@infradead.org>

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 7:37 AM David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>  =============
>  PPP over DTLS
>  =============
>
> We just added support for the PPP-based protocols (Fortinet, F5) and
> I'm not sure we even know what the DTLS-based version looks like on the
> wire, do we? If the header is 4 bytes or fewer, the same nasty trick
> works that I suggest for Cisco DTLS above. And a PPP header even with
> accomp and pfcomp *would* fit in 4 bytes. For the TCP transports we
> have an additional framing but I'm hoping those aren't there in DTLS?
>
> If we do need a header larger than 4 bytes, then we are forced to do
> things properly by adding support in the kernel driver instead of just
> abusing the existing header while we know the kernel isn't looking at
> it.

This is probably too much "inside baseball" for the non-(OpenConnect
developers) here, but I *have* confirmed that the PPP-over-DTLS
encapsulation is identical to the PPP-over-TLS encapsulation for the 2
PPP-based protocols that we support already. Both F5 and Fortinet
essentially opted for the thinnest veneer of UDP-ization possible for
their protocols.

> So, what do we want, and what's the bare minimum we actually *need*
> from Wintun to be able to avoid those memcpys?
>
> The bare minimum is either exposing enough of the TUN_SESSION to let us
> manage the rings for ourselves, or a function which can resize the
> *last* allocated packet from the Tx ring before we call
> WintunSendPacket() on it. That's purely userspace in wintun.dll.
>
> The next request would be to expand the TUN_HEADER to include head/tail
> space, and a parameter in the TUN_REGISTER_RINGS structure which
> configures the amount of head/tail space to leave between received
> packets. That's a change in the kernel API and is more complex to
> manage, and as noted we *could* live without it for now although it's
> kind of ugly, still involves *some* copying at the tail of outbound ESP
> packets, and depends on those PPP headers not exceeding the 4 bytes
> that are currently available for us to abuse :)

The tl;dr for OpenConnect is that we really would need support for
arbitrary head/tail space in order not to have to do *any* memcpy.

Dan

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-10 14:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-07 11:49 David Woodhouse
2021-04-07 23:15 ` Daniel Lenski
2021-04-08 14:37   ` David Woodhouse
2021-04-08 16:42     ` Daniel Lenski [this message]
2021-04-08 17:10       ` David Woodhouse
2021-04-08 17:37         ` Daniel Lenski
2021-04-10 13:38         ` Simon Rozman
2021-04-10 14:35           ` David Woodhouse
2021-04-10 18:32             ` Daniel Lenski
2021-04-12 11:38               ` Simon Rozman
2021-04-12 13:00                 ` David Woodhouse
2021-04-12 17:03                   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2021-04-13 22:09                     ` Jason A. Donenfeld

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAOw_LSHbJ-SwNc8nqFC0KDrY+ah25gfLNyYQf83mb9sSO9=R8A@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=dlenski@gmail.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).