linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: gre_demux: add skb drop reasons to gre

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, 16 Mar 2022 12:41:45 +0800
From:   Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, xeb@...l.ru,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Talal Ahmad <talalahmad@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>,
        Hao Peng <flyingpeng@...cent.com>,
        Mengen Sun <mengensun@...cent.com>, dongli.zhang@...cle.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Biao Jiang <benbjiang@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: gre_demux: add skb drop reasons to gre_rcv()

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:08 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 21:33:10 +0800 menglong8.dong@...il.com wrote:
> > +     reason = SKB_DROP_REASON_NOT_SPECIFIED;
> >       if (!pskb_may_pull(skb, 12))
> >               goto drop;
>
> REASON_HDR_TRUNC ?

I'm still not sure about such a 'pskb_pull' failure, whose reasons may be
complex, such as no memory or packet length too small. I see somewhere
return a '-NOMEM' when skb pull fails.

So maybe such cases can be ignored? In my opinion, not all skb drops
need a reason.


>
> >       ver = skb->data[1]&0x7f;
> > -     if (ver >= GREPROTO_MAX)
> > +     if (ver >= GREPROTO_MAX) {
> > +             reason = SKB_DROP_REASON_GRE_VERSION;
>
> TBH I'm still not sure what level of granularity we should be shooting
> for with the reasons. I'd throw all unexpected header values into one
> bucket, not go for a reason per field, per protocol. But as I'm said
> I'm not sure myself, so we can keep what you have..
>
> >               goto drop;
> > +     }
> >
> >       rcu_read_lock();
> >       proto = rcu_dereference(gre_proto[ver]);
> > -     if (!proto || !proto->handler)
> > +     if (!proto || !proto->handler) {
> > +             reason = SKB_DROP_REASON_GRE_NOHANDLER;
>
> I think the ->handler check is defensive programming, there's no
> protocol upstream which would leave handler NULL.
>
> This is akin to SKB_DROP_REASON_PTYPE_ABSENT, we can reuse that or add
> a new reason, but I'd think the phrasing should be kept similar.

With the handler not NULL, does it mean the gre version is not supported here,
and this 'SKB_DROP_REASON_GRE_NOHANDLER' can be replaced with
SKB_DROP_REASON_GRE_VERSION above?

>
> >               goto drop_unlock;
> > +     }
> >       ret = proto->handler(skb);