[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9929d2390912281642o964617kbee6e8a2b9f6c75f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:42:09 -0800
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, bruce.w.allan@...el.com,
peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, john.ronciak@...el.com,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000: enhance frame fragment detection
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:10, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> Hey all-
> A security discussion was recently given:
> http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan//events/3596.en.html
> And a patch that I submitted awhile back was brought up. Apparently some of
> their testing revealed that they were able to force a buffer fragment in e1000
> in which the trailing fragment was greater than 4 bytes. As a result the
> fragment check I introduced failed to detect the fragement and a partial invalid
> frame was passed up into the network stack. I've written this patch to correct
> it. I'm in the process of testing it now, but it makes good logical sense to
> me. Effectively it maintains a per-adapter state variable which detects a
> non-EOP frame, and discards it and subsequent non-EOP frames leading up to _and_
> _including_ the next positive-EOP frame (as it is by definition the last
> fragment). This should prevent any and all partial frames from entering the
> network stack from e1000
>
> Regards
> Neil
>
>
> e1000.h | 3 ++-
> e1000_main.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>
Thanks Neil. I have add the patch to my queue of patches.
--
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists