Bug 742126 - Openswan problem with combination different types of connections.
Summary: Openswan problem with combination different types of connections.
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: openswan
Version: 6.2
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
high
high
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Paul Wouters
QA Contact: BaseOS QE Security Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-09-29 07:48 UTC by David Spurek
Modified: 2015-03-02 05:26 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-07-23 19:46:08 UTC
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description David Spurek 2011-09-29 07:48:47 UTC
Problem with combination different types of connections.

ipsec.conf look like this:

conn testA
        auto=add
        authby=secret
        type=transport
        left=127.0.0.1
        right=127.0.0.1
        ike=3des-sha1
        phase2=esp
        loopback=yes

conn testB
        auto=add
        authby=secret
        type=passthrough
        left=127.0.0.1
        right=127.0.0.1
        ike=3des-sha1
        leftprotoport=tcp/10000
        loopback=yes

It is important the order of calling ipsec auto --route testA and ipsec auto
--route testB commands.

1. If ipsec auto --route testB called first and then ipsec auto --route testA,
the behaviour is as I expecting (packets on port 10000 are without ipsec)

2. But if I call ipsec auto --route testA first and then ipsec auto --route
testB (stricter rule). All packets are with ipsec (on port 10000 too).


I am not sure that it is a bug or expected behaviour, but records in ip xfrm
policy are same in both cases and in manual pages isn't describe that the order
of calling ipsec auto --route is important.

Comment 1 RHEL Program Management 2012-05-03 05:11:17 UTC
Since RHEL 6.3 External Beta has begun, and this bug remains
unresolved, it has been rejected as it is not proposed as
exception or blocker.

Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the
next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Comment 2 RHEL Program Management 2012-09-28 14:11:18 UTC
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated
in the current release, Red Hat is unable to address this
request at this time.

Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if appropriate, in the next release of
Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Comment 3 Paul Wouters 2013-05-17 19:12:44 UTC
passthrough connections with XFRM/NETKEY should get a higher priority than non-passthrough connections.

This is upstream issue https://bugs.libreswan.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83

Comment 4 RHEL Program Management 2013-07-23 19:46:08 UTC
Development Management has reviewed and declined this request.
You may appeal this decision by reopening this request.

Comment 5 Paul Wouters 2013-09-14 19:55:25 UTC
This has been fixed in libreswan 3.6.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.