linux-kernel - RE: [RFC][PATCHES v2] checksum stuff

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, 6 Dec 2023 11:10:45 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Al Viro' <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     gus Gusenleitner Klaus <gus@...a.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "dsahern@...nel.org" <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCHES v2] checksum stuff

From: Al Viro
> Sent: 05 December 2023 02:21
> 
> We need a way for csum_and_copy_{from,to}_user() to report faults.
> The approach taken back in 2020 (avoid 0 as return value by starting
> summing from ~0U, use 0 to report faults) had been broken; it does
> yield the right value modulo 2^16-1, but the case when data is
> entirely zero-filled is not handled right.  It almost works, since
> for most of the codepaths we have a non-zero value added in
> and there 0 is not different from anything divisible by 0xffff.
> However, there are cases (ICMPv4 replies, for example) where we
> are not guaranteed that.
> 
> In other words, we really need to have those primitives return 0
> on filled-with-zeroes input.

Do we?
I've not seen any justification for this at all.
IIRC the ICMPv4 reply code needs the checksum function return 0xffff
for all-zero input.

So the correct and simple fix is to initialise the sum to 0xffff
in the checksum function.

	David

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