linux-kernel - RE: Bug in short splice to socket?

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:   Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:01:21 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'David Howells' <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Jens Axboe" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: Bug in short splice to socket?

From: David Howells
> Sent: 30 May 2023 23:27
> 
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Will the TLS selftests under tools/.../net/tls.c exercise this?
> 
> Interesting.  Now that you've pointed me at it, I've tried running it.  Mostly
> it passes, but I'm having some problems with the multi_chunk_sendfile tests
> that time out.  I think that splice_direct_to_actor() has a bug.  The problem
> is this bit of code:
> 
> 		/*
> 		 * If more data is pending, set SPLICE_F_MORE
> 		 * If this is the last data and SPLICE_F_MORE was not set
> 		 * initially, clears it.
> 		 */
> 		if (read_len < len)
> 			sd->flags |= SPLICE_F_MORE;
> 		else if (!more)
> 			sd->flags &= ~SPLICE_F_MORE;
> 
> When used with sendfile(), it sets SPLICE_F_MORE (which causes MSG_MORE to be
> passed to the network protocol) if we haven't yet read everything that the
> user requested and clears it if we fulfilled what the user requested.
> 
> This has the weird effect that MSG_MORE gets kind of inverted.  It's never
> seen by the actor if we can read the entire request into the pipe - except if
> we hit the EOF first.  If we hit the EOF before we fulfil the entire request,
> we get a short read and SPLICE_F_MORE and thus MSG_MORE *is* set.  The
> upstream TLS code ignores it - but I'm changing this with my patches as
> sendmsg() then uses it to mark the EOR.

Isn't MSG_MORE supposed to be just a hint that more data will follow.
So you'd expect a final send with MSG_MORE to get sent, but possibly
after a short timeout.

Using it as a record marker seems wrong.

I'm not sure how to clear 'Oh bugger I set MSG_MORE but have no data'
to avoid the timeout.
A zero length semdmsg() won't DTRT with protocols like SCTP.
(Does splice even do anything sensible with SCTP?)

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)