linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF

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]

Message-ID: <45E064FF.8010000@trash.net>
Date:	Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:17:03 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE vs emergency	skbs

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 16:27 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
>>> 	} else if ((verdict & NF_VERDICT_MASK)  == NF_QUEUE) {
>>>+		if (unlikely((*pskb)->emergency)) {
>>>+			printk(KERN_ERR "nf_hook: NF_QUEUE encountered for "
>>>+					"emergency skb - skipping rule.\n");
>>>+			goto next_hook;
>>>+		}
>>
>>If I'm not mistaken any skb on the receive side might get
>>allocated from the reserve. I don't see how the user could
>>avoid this except by not using queueing at all.
> 
> 
> Well, the rules could be setup so that the storage path will never hit
> the queue.


Sure, but other packets might still get allocated from the
reserve and trigger this.

>>I think the user should just exclude packets necessary for
>>swapping from queueing manually, based on IP addresses,
>>port numbers or something like that.
> 
> 
> Indeed, this patch will just warn the user that he did something very
> wrong and should avoid this situation.
> 
> Perhaps skipping is not the proper action, but dropping them will most
> certainly freeze the box. Either way seems unlucky. Might as well stick
> BUG() in there :-(.


At this point we don't know whether the packet is destined for
a SOCK_VMIO socket or not. The only thing we know is that is
was allocated from the reserve, but it could be anything.
There is really nothing you can do at this point.

> Any ideas on how to resolve this are most welcome, detecting the
> situation on either rule insert or swapon and failing the respective
> action would be most ideal, but I have no idea if that is feasible.


Unfortunately this is not possible either. I don't really see why
queueing is special though, dropping the packets in the ruleset
will break things just as well, as will routing them to a blackhole.
I guess the user just needs to be smart enough not to do this.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/