netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:30:17 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, vi0oss@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:21:18AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 04:50:17PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > xfrm6_local_error/xfrm4_tunnel_check_size report mtu errors back to a
> > socket in case it is locally generated. If the packet first traversed
> > a 6in4/4in6 tunnel before passing the xfrm layer, we could get a panic
> > because of address family type mismatch in the error reporting functions.
> > 
> 
> So the skb is still owned by a socket of the inner address family.
> Is this intentional? Maybe the ndo_start_xmit() function of the
> tunnel device should orphan the skb if we tunnel the packet
> through a different address family.

I thought about this, too. But then we would stop accounting the data
to the socket while it is travelling the stack. I don't know about the
possible problems resulting from this.

Greetings,

  Hannes

--
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