netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: prevent non-IPv4 socket to be added into sock hash

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:   Fri, 1 Jun 2018 11:40:35 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: prevent non-IPv4 socket to be added into
 sock hash

On 06/01/2018 12:56 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 05/31/2018 06:00 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:32 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Wei,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report and fix. It would be better to fix the
>>> root cause so that IPv6 works as intended.
>>>
>>> I'm testing the following now,
>>>
>>> Author: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
>>> Date:   Thu May 31 14:38:59 2018 -0700
>>>
>>>     sockmap: fix crash when ipv6 sock is added by adding support for IPv6
>>>
>>>     Apparently we had a testing escape and missed IPv6. This fixes a crash
>>>     where we assign tcp_prot to IPv6 sockets instead of tcpv6_prot.
>>>
>>>     Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
>>>
>>
>> Hi John
>>
>> In any case, please forward correct attribution for Wei's work, and
>> syzbot 'Reported-by'
> 
> Will send update with tags in a moment.
> 
>>
>> Are you sure you are handling IPv4 mapped in IPv6 sockets as well ?
>>
>
> No, will look into it. Although I didn't see any code to handle it
> in the ./net/tls case either so if there is some issue with this it
> could possibly exist in both ULPs. I guess if ipv4 mapped ipv6
> changes prot or callbacks then we could stomp on it.
>

Will need a v2 to address this, by adding a check to only work on
ESTABLISHED sockets we resolve this issue and the one noted in the
TLS ULP side as well.

Thanks a lot Eric.