netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: skbuff: skb_vlan_push: Fix wrong unwinding of skb->data after __vlan_insert

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:56:44 +0300
From:   Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...ellosystems.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: skbuff: skb_vlan_push: Fix wrong unwinding
 of skb->data after __vlan_insert_tag call

Hi,

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:30:56 +0200, daniel@...earbox.net wrote:
> > @@ -4608,6 +4608,8 @@ int skb_vlan_push(struct sk_buff *skb, __be16 vlan_proto, u16 vlan_tci)
> >
> >   		skb->protocol = skb->vlan_proto;
> >   		skb->mac_len += VLAN_HLEN;
> > +		if (offset)
> > +			offset += VLAN_HLEN;
> >
> >   		skb_postpush_rcsum(skb, skb->data + (2 * ETH_ALEN), VLAN_HLEN);
> >   		__skb_pull(skb, offset);
> 
> This looks much better indeed than your v1 of this patch.

Yep, after some meditation and history digging I happened to notice I
was barking at the wrong tree.

> So the issue might only be visible to act_vlan as the other remaining user of
> skb_vlan_push(). 

Yes, this is correct. I'll amend the log message to express that.
The bug occurs for callers of skb_vlan_push() whose data is not
pointing at mac_header.

> My only question would be:
> what about __skb_vlan_pop(), wouldn't that then need the same adjustment
> a la offset -= VLAN_HLEN?

Well, theoretically, yes; but caller may expect 2 different things:

(assuming tags are in-payload)

(1) suppose upon entry we have

    DA,SA,0x8100,TCI,0x0800,
    ^                ^
    mac_hdr          data

initial offset is 18, and after current unwinding code we'll get

    DA,SA,0x0800,4_bytes,
    ^                    ^
    mac_hdr              data

which is probably incorrect, adjustment 'offset -= VLAN_HLEN' is needed.

(2) suppose upon entry we have

    DA,SA,0x8100,TCI,0x0800
    ^            ^
    mac_hdr      data

initial offset is 14, and after current unwinding code we'll get

    DA,SA,0x0800,
    ^            ^
    mac_hdr      data

which is probably what user has intended.
(had we adjusted offset to be 10, 'data' would point into SA)

From test I've made using act_vlan upon ingress on QinQ tags, existing call
provides data as in (2).

Thoughts?
Should we adjust "offset" back, only if resulting offset is >=14 ?

Thanks,
Shmulik