netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec] xfrm: prevent ipcomp scratch buffer race condition

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:	Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:01:49 +0200
From:	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec] xfrm: prevent ipcomp scratch buffer race condition

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:32:05PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 06:03:34PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> 
> > Add similar protection into ipcomp_decompress() as it can be
> > called from process context as well (even if such scenario seems
> > a bit artificial).
> 
> I don't think this is possible or otherwise xfrm_input will
> dead-lock.

When I was thinking about this, I came with two situations when this
might IMHO happen:

1. We are sending a packet to ourselves; this could mean not only a
local loop but also e.g. a packets between an LXC container and the host
or between two LXC containers. While it doesn't make much sense to use
compression in such case, it might happen while testing a solution which
is going to be used in a normal setup later.

2. The packet was passed to tun/tap device by a userspace application.

Am I wrong?

                                                        Michal Kubecek

--
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