netdev - Re: [PATCH] e1000: enhance frame fragment detection

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, 6 Jan 2010 19:56:29 -0500
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000: enhance frame fragment detection

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 03:27:42PM -0800, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> a counter patch, without atomic ops, since we are protected by napi when 
> modifying this variable.
> 
> Originally From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> Modified by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
> 
> <original message>
> 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.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Seems like a fine alternative to me.  Thanks!
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>

--
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