linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx

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]

Date:	Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:43:07 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>,
	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>,
	David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:38:06PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 23:25 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin a écrit :
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:31:03PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 20:39 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin a écrit :
> > > 
> > > > > When a socket with inflight tx packets is closed, we dont block the
> > > > > close, we only delay the socket freeing once all packets were delivered
> > > > > and freed.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Which is wrong, since this is under userspace control, so you get
> > > > unkillable processes.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > We do not get unkillable processes, at least with sockets I was thinking
> > > about (TCP/UDP ones).
> > > 
> > > Maybe tun sockets can behave the same ?
> > 
> > Looks like that's what my patch does: ip_rcv seems to call
> > skb_orphan too.
> 
> Well, I was speaking of tx side, you speak of receiving side.

Point is, both ip_rcv and my patch call skb_orphan.

> An external flood (coming from another domain) is another problem.
> 
> A sender might flood the 'network' inside our domain. How can we
> reasonably limit the sender ?
> 
> Maybe the answer is 'We can not', but it should be stated somewhere, so
> that someone can address this point later.
> 

And whatever's done should ideally work for tap to IP
and IP to IP sockets as well, not just tap to tap.

-- 
MST
--
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/