netdev - Re: Backport bpf: try harder on clones when writing into skb? [Commit: 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22]

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 06 Jul 2016 10:12:57 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
CC:	sargun@...gun.me, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Backport bpf: try harder on clones when writing into skb? [Commit:
 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22]

On 07/06/2016 05:47 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:16:51 -0700
>
>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 08:35:18AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
>>> Does it make sense to backport
>>> 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22 from 4.6 to the longterm
>>> (4.4) release? I can trivially recreate the issue represented by
>>> 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22 by attaching a eBPF filter
>>> that clones an ingress ICMP packet, and then tries to set the
>>> destination MAC address.
>>>
>>> It seems like the patch applies cleanly to 4.4. I cherry-picked it,
>>> and rebuilt my kernel, and at least in the trivial test case passes.
>>
>> Makes sense to me, especially since it's lts.
>> Daniel, thoughts?
>
> I'll queued this up for 4.4 -stable.

Sounds good, thanks!