linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] can: fix loss of frames due to wrong assumption in raw

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:	Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:48:10 +0200
From:	Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@....at>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
CC:	linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@...zinger.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: fix loss of frames due to wrong assumption in raw_rcv

Hello Oliver,

On 2015-06-21 00:42, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

>> 514ac99c64b22d83b52dfee3b8becaa69a92bc4a introduces a frame equality
>> check. Since the sk_buff pointer is not sufficient to do this (buffers
>> are reused), the check also compares time stamps.
>> In short: pointer+time stamp was assumed as unique key to a specific
>> frame.
>> The problem with this is, that the time stamp is an optional property
>> and not set per default.
>> In our case (flexcan) the time stamp is always zero, so the equality
>> check is reduced to equality of buffer pointers, resulting in a lot of
>> dropped frames.
> 
> The question is why your system did not generate a timestamp at the time of
> skb reception.
> 
> Usually when netif_rx(), netif_rx_ni() is invoked the timestamp is set in the
> following reception process.
> 
> flexcan.c only uses netif_receive_skb() - but all theses functions set the
> timestamp
> 
> 	net_timestamp_check(netdev_tstamp_prequeue, skb);
> 
> depending on netdev_tstamp_prequeue which is configured by
> 
> /proc/sys/net/core/netdev_tstamp_prequeue
> 
> See the idea of netdev_tstamp_prequeue here:
> 
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/net/core/sysctl_net_core.c?id=3b098e2d7c693796cc4dffb07caa249fc0f70771
> 
Thank you for the background information!
I've also noticed your patch [PATCH - regression 4.1-rc8] can: fix loss of CAN frames in raw_rcv

> Can you tell me the output of /proc/sys/net/core/netdev_tstamp_prequeue on
> your machine?

/proc/sys/net/core/netdev_tstamp_prequeue is set to 1 (unmodified, default)

I tried to dig a little deeper in timestamping:
 1. (net/core/dev.c) I found that static_key_false(&netstamp_needed) is always 0, resulting that the timestamp is never set by net_timestamp_check in netif_receive_skb_internal.
 2. (net/core/dev.c) static_key_false(&netstamp_needed) is 0 because net_enable_timestamp is never called.
 3. (net/core/sock.c) net_enable_timestamp is never called because SK_FLAGS_TIMESTAMP is not set
 4. (net/core/sock.c) SK_FLAGS_TIMESTAMP is not set because neither of SOCK_TIMESTAMP or SOCK_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE is set 
 5. (net/core/sock.c) SOCK_TIMESTAMP or SOCK_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE is not set because timestamping is an optional feature (according to http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/networking/timestamping.txt?id=b953c0d234bc72e8489d3bf51a276c5c4ec85345) not enabled in my use case (even if netdev_tstamp_prequeue is set to 1)

So the original assumption for the was correct: The correctness of the skb equality check depends on a feature that is not enabled by default (respectively user configurable).
Do you agree with this?

> 
> Thanks again for your investigation!
Sure!

Best regards,
Manfred

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/