linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

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: <572523C4.4080307@candelatech.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:29:40 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Vijay Pandurangan <vijayp@...ayp.ca>
CC:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Evan Jones <ej@...njones.ca>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
	Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.



On 04/30/2016 02:13 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>>
>>> We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface
>>> to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to
>>> follow it. Broken checksum processing is really hard to detect and
>>> debug.
>>>
>>> CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY means that some number of _specific_ checksums
>>> (indicated by csum_level) have been verified to be correct in a
>>> packet. Blindly promoting CHECKSUM_NONE to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY is
>>> never right. If CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY is set in such a manner but the
>>> checksum it would refer to has not been verified and is incorrect this
>>> is a major bug.
>>
>>
>> Suppose I know that the packet received on a packet-socket has
>> already been verified by a NIC that supports hardware checksumming.
>>
>> Then, I want to transmit it on a veth interface using a second
>> packet socket.  I do not want veth to recalculate the checksum on
>> transmit, nor to validate it on the peer veth on receive, because I do
>> not want to waste the CPU cycles.  I am assuming that my app is not
>> accidentally corrupting frames, so the checksum can never be bad.
>>
>> How should the checksumming be configured for the packets going into
>> the packet-socket from user-space?
>
>
> It seems like that only the receiver should decide whether or not to
> checksum packets on the veth, not the sender.
>
> How about:
>
> We could add a receiving socket option for "don't checksum packets
> received from a veth when the other side has marked them as
> elide-checksum-suggested" (similar to UDP_NOCHECKSUM), and a sending
> socket option for "mark all data sent via this socket to a veth as
> elide-checksum-suggested".
>
> So the process would be:
>
> Writer:
> 1. open read socket
> 2. open write socket, with option elide-checksum-for-veth-suggested
> 3. write data
>
> Reader:
> 1. open read socket with "follow-elide-checksum-suggestions-on-veth"
> 2. read data
>
> The kernel / module would then need to persist the flag on all packets
> that traverse a veth, and drop these data when they leave the veth
> module.

I'm not sure this works completely.  In my app, the packet flow might be:

eth0 <-> raw-socket <-> user-space-bridge <-> raw-socket <-> vethA <-> vethB <-> [kernel router/bridge logic ...] <-> eth1

There may be no sockets on the vethB port.  And reader/writer is not
a good way to look at it since I am implementing a bi-directional bridge in
user-space and each packet-socket is for both rx and tx.

>> Also, I might want to send raw frames that do have
>> broken checksums (lets assume a real NIC, not veth), and I want them
>> to hit the wire with those bad checksums.
>>
>>
>> How do I configure the checksumming in this case?
>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is already possible now. You
> can have packets with incorrect checksum hitting the wire as is. What
> you cannot do is instruct the receiving end to ignore the checksum
> from the sending end when using a physical device (and something I
> think we should mimic on the sending device).

Yes, it does work currently (or, last I checked)...I just want to make sure it keeps working.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com