linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] net: add kcov handle to skb extensions

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: <20201121165227.GT15137@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Sat, 21 Nov 2020 17:52:27 +0100
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     Aleksandr Nogikh <aleksandrnogikh@...il.com>, fw@...len.de,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, johannes@...solutions.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
        elver@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
        Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] net: add kcov handle to skb extensions

Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:36:19PM +0000, Aleksandr Nogikh wrote:
> > From: Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>
> > 
> > Remote KCOV coverage collection enables coverage-guided fuzzing of the
> > code that is not reachable during normal system call execution. It is
> > especially helpful for fuzzing networking subsystems, where it is
> > common to perform packet handling in separate work queues even for the
> > packets that originated directly from the user space.
> > 
> > Enable coverage-guided frame injection by adding kcov remote handle to
> > skb extensions. Default initialization in __alloc_skb and
> > __build_skb_around ensures that no socket buffer that was generated
> > during a system call will be missed.
> > 
> > Code that is of interest and that performs packet processing should be
> > annotated with kcov_remote_start()/kcov_remote_stop().
> > 
> > An alternative approach is to determine kcov_handle solely on the
> > basis of the device/interface that received the specific socket
> > buffer. However, in this case it would be impossible to distinguish
> > between packets that originated during normal background network
> > processes or were intentionally injected from the user space.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>
> > Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> 
> [...]
> 
> > @@ -249,6 +249,9 @@ struct sk_buff *__alloc_skb(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >  
> >  		fclones->skb2.fclone = SKB_FCLONE_CLONE;
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	skb_set_kcov_handle(skb, kcov_common_handle());
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This causes skb extensions to be allocated for the allocated skb, but
> there are instances that blindly overwrite 'skb->extensions' by invoking
> skb_copy_header() after __alloc_skb(). For example, skb_copy(),
> __pskb_copy_fclone() and skb_copy_expand(). This results in the skb
> extensions being leaked [1].

[..]
> Other suggestions?

Aleksandr, why was this made into an skb extension in the first place?

AFAIU this feature is usually always disabled at build time.
For debug builds (test farm /debug kernel etc) its always needed.

If thats the case this u64 should be an sk_buff member, not an
extension.