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 08:56:14 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     menglong8.dong@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        xeb@...l.ru, davem@...emloft.net, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        imagedong@...cent.com, edumazet@...gle.com, kafai@...com,
        talalahmad@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org, alobakin@...me,
        flyingpeng@...cent.com, mengensun@...cent.com,
        dongli.zhang@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        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 3/15/22 10:55 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 21:49:01 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
>>>>  	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..  
>>
>> I have stated before I do not believe every single drop point in the
>> kernel needs a unique reason code. This is overkill. The reason augments
>> information we already have -- the IP from kfree_skb tracepoint.
> 
> That's certainly true. I wonder if there is a systematic way of
> approaching these additions that'd help us picking the points were 
> we add reasons less of a judgment call.

In my head it's split between OS housekeeping and user visible data.
Housekeeping side of it is more the technical failure points like skb
manipulations - maybe interesting to a user collecting stats about how a
node is performing, but more than likely not. IMHO, those are ignored
for now (NOT_SPECIFIED).

The immediate big win is for packets from a network where an analysis
can show code location (instruction pointer), user focused reason (csum
failure, 'otherhost', no socket open, no socket buffer space, ...) and
traceable to a specific host (headers in skb data).