netdev - Re: [PATCH] Multicast packet reassembly can fail

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, 28 Oct 2009 08:29:08 -0500
From:	Steve Chen <schen@...sta.com>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Multicast packet reassembly can fail

On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 16:22 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> Steve Chen wrote:
> > Multicast packet reassembly can fail
> > 
> > When multicast connections with multiple fragments are received by the same
> > node from more than one Ethernet ports, race condition between fragments
> > from each Ethernet port can cause fragment reassembly to fail leading to
> > packet drop.  This is because packets from each Ethernet port appears identical
> > to the the code that reassembles the Ethernet packet.
> > 
> > The solution is evaluate the Ethernet interface number in addition to all other
> > parameters so that every packet can be uniquely identified.  The existing
> > iif field in struct ipq is now used to generate the hash key, and iif is also
> > used for comparison in case of hash collision.
> > 
> > Please note that q->saddr ^ (q->iif << 5) is now being passed into
> > ipqhashfn to generate the hash key.  This is borrowed from the routing
> > code.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Steve Chen <schen@...sta.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Huth <mhuth@...sta.com>
> 
> It has been hours since my last good Emily Litella moment so I'll ask - isn't 
> the combination of source and dest addr, protocol, IP ID and fragment offset 
> supposed to take care of this?  How does the ingress interface have anything to 
> do with it?

Here is the scenario this patch tries to address

<src node> ---->  <switch>  ----> <eth0 dest node>
                            \--->  <eth1 dest node>

For this specific case, src/dst address, protocol, IP ID and fragment
offset are all identical.  The only difference is the ingress interface.
A good follow up question would be why would anyone in their right mind
multicast to the same destination?  well, I don't know.  I can not get
the people who reported the problem to tell me either.   Since someone
found the need to do this,  perhaps others may find it useful too.

Regards,

Steve

--
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