linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/4] net: tap: track dropped skb via kfree_skb

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:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:03:00 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, imagedong@...cent.com,
        joao.m.martins@...cle.com, joe.jin@...cle.com, dsahern@...il.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/4] net: tap: track dropped skb via
 kfree_skb_reason()

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 09:43:29 -0800 Dongli Zhang wrote:
> On 3/1/22 6:42 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 00:49:27 -0800 Dongli Zhang wrote:  
> >> +	SKB_DROP_REASON_SKB_CSUM,	/* sk_buff checksum error */  
> > 
> > Can we spell it out a little more? It sounds like the checksum was
> > incorrect. Will it be clear that computing the checksum failed, rather
> > than checksum validation failed?  
> 
> I am just trying to make the reasons as generic as possible so that:
> 
> 1. We may minimize the number of reasons.
> 
> 2. People may re-use the same reason for all CSUM related issue.

The generic nature is fine, my concern is to clearly differentiate
errors in _validating_ the checksum from errors in _generating_ them.
"sk_buff checksum error" does not explain which one had taken place.

> >> +	SKB_DROP_REASON_SKB_COPY_DATA,	/* failed to copy data from or to
> >> +					 * sk_buff
> >> +					 */  
> > 
> > Here should we specify that it's copying from user space?  
> 
> Same as above. I am minimizing the number of reasons so that any memory copy for
> sk_buff may re-use this reason.

IIUC this failure is equivalent to user passing an invalid buffer. 
I mean something like:

	send(fd, (void *)random(), 1000, 0);

I'd be tempted to call the reason something link SKB_UCOPY_FAULT.
To indicate it's a problem copying from user space. EFAULT is the
typical errno for that. WDYT?