netdev - RE: [PATCH] net: sk_prot_alloc() should not blindly overwrite memory

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, 8 Jul 2009 17:35:51 -0600
From:	"Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"emils.tantilov@...il.com" <emils.tantilov@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: sk_prot_alloc() should not blindly overwrite memory

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> David Miller a écrit :
>> From: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:02:22 -0600
>> 
>>> Still seeing traces during the test even with this patch applied:
>>> 
>>> [ 1089.430093] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> [ 1089.435667] WARNING: at include/net/sock.h:423
>>> udp_lib_unhash+0x73/0xa0() [ 1089.435670] Hardware name: S5520HC
>> 
>> Ok I'll back this out for now, needs more investigation
>> obviously.
> 
> Hmm... I never said it was supposed to fix Emil problem, just that
> I discovered one potential problem by code inspection.
> 
> I could not find yet sk_refcnt mismatch.
> As we do less atomic ops per packet than before, some old bug could
> surface now...
> 
> Emil, is it easy to reproduce this problem, considering I have a
> similar platform than yours (dual quad core machine, E5450 cpus @
> 3GHz) ? 

Eric,

It should be easy to reproduce. At least I have been able to consistently 
reproduce it on several different systems with different drivers (e1000, e1000e, igb). 

The test I'm running is a mix of IPV4/6 TCP/UDP traffic with netperf (also mixing different types TCP/UDP_STREAM, TCP_MAERTS, TCP_UDP_RR etc). How much this matters I don't know - it's possible that just UDP traffic would do it. I also think it may have something to do with IPv6
because of the trace, but I am not sure.

If you need more information let me know.

Thanks,
Emil--
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