netdev - Re: [RESEND][PATCH 1/3] PPPoE: improved hashing routine

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: <20070731080719.GA12071@florz.florz.dyndns.org>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:07:19 +0200
From:	Florian Zumbiehl <florz@...rz.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	mostrows@...thlink.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH 1/3] PPPoE: improved hashing routine

Hi,

> > -static int hash_item(unsigned long sid, unsigned char *addr)
> > +#if 8%PPPOE_HASH_BITS
> > +#error 8 must be a multiple of PPPOE_HASH_BITS
> > +#endif
> 
> Since PPPOE_HASH_BITS is "4" I would think this check will break the
> build. :-)

Erm, I thought that 8 was 4*2, but maybe I didn't quite understand that
natural numbers business ;-)

> Anyways, I looked at this myself and half of the problem comes from
> the fact that "sid" is passed around as an "unsigned long" throughout
> this entire file yet the thing is just a "__u16".
> 
> So the first thing to fix is to use __u16 consistently for sid values.
> Then the sid hash looks obviously wrong and is easy to fix.
> 
> Then you end up with a hash_item() that simply looks like:
> 
> static unsigned int hash_item(__u16 sid, unsigned char *addr)
> {
> 	unsigned int hash;
> 
> 	hash = (((unsigned int)addr[0] << 24) |
> 		((unsigned int)addr[1] << 16) |
> 		((unsigned int)addr[2] <<  8) |
> 		((unsigned int)addr[3] <<  0));
> 
> 	hash ^= (((unsigned int)addr[4] << 8) |
> 		 ((unsigned int)addr[5] << 0));
> 
> 	hash ^= sid;
> 
> 	return ((hash ^ (hash >> 8) ^ (hash >> 16)) &
> 		(PPPOE_HASH_SIZE - 1));
> }
> 
> which is what I've checked into my tree.

Erm, I'd say this not only produces different results than the old
version, but it also produces "wrong" results, in that it ignores quite
a bit of the data that's supposed to be hashed. If I didn't overlook
something, it only considers addr&0x0f0f0f0f0f00 and sid&0x0f0f, given
the right endianness of addr and that PPPOE_HASH_SIZE stays 16.

Florian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html