netdev - Re: [net PATCH] gro: Allow tunnel stacking in the case of FOU/GUE

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:	Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:54:03 -0700
From:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net PATCH] gro: Allow tunnel stacking in the case of FOU/GUE

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com> wrote:
>> This patch should fix the issues seen with a recent fix to prevent
>> tunnel-in-tunnel frames from being generated with GRO.  The fix itself is
>> correct for now as long as we do not add any devices that support
>> NETIF_F_GSO_GRE_CSUM.  When such a device is added it could have the
>> potential to mess things up due to the fact that the outer transport header
>> points to the outer UDP header and not the GRE header as would be expected.
>>
>> Fixes: fac8e0f579695 ("tunnels: Don't apply GRO to multiple layers of encapsulation.")
>
> This could only fix FOU/GUE. It is very possible someone else could
> happily be doing some other layered encapsulation and never had a
> problem before, so the decision to start enforcing only a single layer
> of encapsulation for GRO would still break them. I still think we
> should revert the patch, and for next version fixes things to that any
> combination/nesting of encapsulation is supported, and if there are
> exceptions to that support they need be clearly documented.

It was pointed out to me that prior to my patch, it was also possible
to remotely cause a stack overflow by filling up a packet with tunnel
headers and letting GRO descend through them over and over again.

Tom, I'm sorry that you don't like how I fixed this issue but there
really, truly is a bug here. I gave you a specific example to be clear
but that doesn't mean that is the only case. I am aware that the bug
is not encountered in all situations and that the fix removes an
optimization in some of those but I think that ensuring correct
behavior must come first.