netdev - Re: Broken commit: [NETFILTER]: ipt_REJECT: remove largely duplicate route

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]

Message-ID: <456CAE0D.2080209@trash.net>
Date:	Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:45:49 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Netfilter Development Mailinglist 
	<netfilter-devel@...ts.netfilter.org>
Subject: Re: Broken commit: [NETFILTER]: ipt_REJECT: remove largely duplicate
 route_reverse function

Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> writes:
> 
>>How sure are you about this? I can see nothing wrong with that
>>commit and can't reproduce the slab corruption. Please post
>>the rule that triggers this.
> 
> 
> 99% sure. Past this commit I get corruptions after 5 minutes at most
> (that's ADSL with USB Thomson/Alcatel Speedtouch -> PPP over ATM,
> with a GRE tunnel over that PPP).

It might be the case that your network device has a
hard_header_len > LL_MAX_HEADER, which could trigger
a corruption.

> I'm now running 901eaf6c8f997f18ebc8fcbb85411c79161ab3b2 (i.e. the
> last commit before the one in question) for 4 hours and nothing like
> that.
> 
> Not sure about the exact rule, but the most probable candidates are:
> -A INPUT -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST,ACK SYN -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset
> -A INPUT -p udp -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
> 
> Other "REJECT" rules haven't fired yet.
> 
> Could be some obscure problem with GRE/Speedtouch/PPP over ATM,
> triggered by this patch, though.
> 
> Perhaps I can do some experiments - just say a word.

Please try this patch on top of the REJECT patch (ideally after
verifying that the REJECT patch is really introducing the
corruption).


View attachment "x" of type "text/plain" (1061 bytes)