linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v1 2/2] net: gro: add p_off param in *_gro

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:17:21 +0200
From: Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org,
 aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 2/2] net: gro: add p_off param in *_gro_complete

Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Richard Gobert wrote:
>> Willem de Bruijn wrote:> Since this INDIRECT_CALL_INET needs to know about the definitions of
>>> udp4_lib_lookup_skb and udp6_lib_lookup_skb anyway, we can just get
>>> rid of the whole udp_lookup_t type and function pointer passing?
>>>
>>> Or move the entire lookup to udp4_gro_complete/udp6_gro_complete and
>>> pass the sk to udp_gro_complete.
>>
>> This sounds like a really good idea, I like it. Although I think it may be
>> more relevant to net-next instead of this bug fix. I can post a
>> complementing patch to net-next later if that's OK with you
> 
> That's fine.
> 
> This patch as is is already very intrusive for a net patch. For a fix,
> could we do something smaller? Like add the network offset into
> NAPI_GRO_CB in inet_gro_callback and use that in udp4_lib_lookup_skb? 
> (and same for IPv6 of course).
> 

Yes, I think that's a good idea. I also think a smaller patch for net will
turn out to be more reliable.

I'll take the first commit in the net-next patch series and use it to fix
the UDP bug discussed here. I tested that version thoroughly for all
protocols supported in GRO, and it doesn't add any overhead for the TCP
common case.