Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:12:38 -0500
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000: enhance frame fragment detection

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 05:56:28PM -0800, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> > a counter patch, without atomic ops, since we are protected by napi when 
> > modifying this variable.
> > 
> > Originally From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> > Modified by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
> > 
> > <original message>
> > Hey all-
> > 	A security discussion was recently given:
> > http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan//events/3596.en.html
> > And a patch that I submitted awhile back was brought up.  Apparently some of
> > their testing revealed that they were able to force a buffer fragment in e1000
> > in which the trailing fragment was greater than 4 bytes.  As a result the
> > fragment check I introduced failed to detect the fragement and a partial
> > invalid frame was passed up into the network stack.  I've written this patch
> > to correct it.  I'm in the process of testing it now, but it makes good
> > logical sense to me.  Effectively it maintains a per-adapter state variable
> > which detects a non-EOP frame, and discards it and subsequent non-EOP frames
> > leading up to _and_ _including_ the next positive-EOP frame (as it is by
> > definition the last fragment).  This should prevent any and all partial frames
> > from entering the network stack from e1000.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
> 
> I would like to withdraw this patch, at least for 2.6.32+ e1000 and e1000e 
> are both not susceptible to this attack.  We have verified the below with 
> testing, including code modifications to guarantee the correct paths were 
> taken when receiving overlong frames.
> 
> What has happened is that in commit 
> edbbb3ca107715067b27a71e6ea7f58750912aa2 the e1000 driver had a feature 
> added to use 4kB data buffers when in jumbo mode.  This code understands 
> chains of data buffers, (in fact depends on it) so even when receiving a 
> packet that is longer than 4kB, the packet is handed in its entirety to 
> the stack.
> 
> I believe RedHat has not backported this patch, and kernels <= 2.6.31 
> still need the fix, so both need some version of this workaround, but 
> 2.6.32 does not.
> 
> As for e1000e, in jumbo mode it has always used what we call "packet split 
> mode" in the driver, where hardware uses a special descriptor that can 
> contain 4 dma fragments, a header buffer of 256 bytes and up to 3 4kB data 
> buffers.  If a packet that arrives is > (12kB + 256) then it will overflow 
> into the next descriptor, using only the first 4kB data buffer of the 
> second descriptor (our hardware has a hard limit of 16kB for any ethernet 
> frame, longer are dropped at the hardware level)
> 
> The code correctly handles the !EOP packet and drops it, and the next 
> packet will hit the !length (of the header buffer) condition and also be 
> dropped.
> 
> Other Intel hardware is not susceptible to this attack.  Hardware 
> supported by the e100 (no jumbo frames), the ixgb driver (MFS register), 
> the igb driver (RLPML register), and ixgbe (MHADD/MAXFRS register) do not 
> have this issue.
> 
> Hope this clears up some things,
> 
I'm sorry, it doesn't clear much up, at least not for me.  The patch you're
referencing above deals only with the jumbo receive path, not the non-jumbo
case, which is not written to handle skb chains.  The vulnerability targets the
latter case specifically.  We've seen cases in which an extra data is
transferred into a subsequent buffer in the ring in that path.  Normally in our
reproducing cases, I only saw a 4 byte overrun.  Theres a check specifically in
the e1000(e) drivers for that case.  Unfortunately I never tested other cases,
but if someone sets a low mtu (say 1000 bytes), I don't see why the same issue
can't manifest as a buffer chain consisting of a 1000 byte skb followed by up to
an extra 522 byte skb.  such a condition would bypass that check and result in
admitting a garbage frame to the network stack.

Neil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists