linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tcp: harmonize tcp_vx

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: <4B4D9754.9070902@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:50:12 -0500
From:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: harmonize tcp_vx_rcv header length assumptions

William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Seems fine, but :
>>
>> 1) What means the "Transformed ?" you wrote several times ?
>>
> The only reason that I've been able to figure out for having the
> skb->len test in those places is the preceding xfrm4_policy_check()
> or xfrm6_policy_check() must be able to shrink the skb->len?
> 
> When I did the original transform stuff in other code circa 1995, I'd
> envisioned IP length or link layer (PPP) length shrinking (removing
> padding after block ciphers) -- and apparently this implementation
> extended that concept to transport layer, too.
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer that a single test be placed in the appropriate
> spot in the xfrm* functions, instead.  Anybody know where?
> 
I've spent another day staring at the xfrm* functions.  Since nobody
familiar with them has answered my recent questions, it seems I'm on my
own....  So, here are my conclusions:

The current xfrm* code shouldn't change the TCP header.  If anything did,
the current tests wouldn't work anyway.  For example:

tcp_ipv4:
tcp_v4_rcv()
...
1645 no_tcp_socket:
1646         if (!xfrm4_policy_check(NULL, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb))
1647                 goto discard_it;
1648
1649         if (skb->len < (th->doff << 2) || tcp_checksum_complete(skb)) {

This code depends on the *th pointer remaining unchanged.  A pullup or
skb clone could make the pointer invalid.

Likewise, the checksum occurs after the xfrm* code.  Thus, the xfrm*
cannot alter, decrypt, or tunnel the input data.

Therefore, I'll remove those existing extraneous skb->len tests.  And
I'll add these criteria to the include/net/xfrm.h for future reference.
--
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/