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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:33:26 -0500
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"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 Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 06:47:41PM -0800, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Neil Horman wrote:
> > I'm sorry, it doesn't clear much up, at least not for me.  The patch you're
> > referencing above deals only with the jumbo receive path, not the non-jumbo
> > case, which is not written to handle skb chains.  The vulnerability targets the
> > latter case specifically.  We've seen cases in which an extra data is
> > transferred into a subsequent buffer in the ring in that path.  Normally in our
> > reproducing cases, I only saw a 4 byte overrun.  Theres a check specifically in
> > the e1000(e) drivers for that case.  Unfortunately I never tested other cases,
> > but if someone sets a low mtu (say 1000 bytes), I don't see why the same issue
> > can't manifest as a buffer chain consisting of a 1000 byte skb followed by up to
> > an extra 522 byte skb.  such a condition would bypass that check and result in
> > admitting a garbage frame to the network stack.
> 
> Hm, you're right. /me smacks head.  Thanks for your comments Neil, they 
> are very useful.
> 
I'm glad, thank you for listening.  I just couldn't reconcile what you were
saying with what the vulnerability was as it was reported.

> Wish we had thought to test the 1000 mtu case before I replied.  In any 
> case, we now have verified that the fix in this thread is good in the case 
> of 1000 mtu. 
> 
Agreed, we've done so as well here.

> So I now withdraw my withdrawal.  
> 
> We have a couple more things to test/fix before we post the final 
> version(s), I know this is priority but I also don't want to rush out an 
> incomplete fix.
> 
Don't rush, I expect distros can go with what we have currently if we need to
update later we can.

> Current plan is Jeff K will post the official version in the next couple 
> of days, for e1000 and e1000e, which isn't necessary for >=1500 mtu, but 
> is apparently necessary for smaller MTU.
> 
Copy that, thanks!
Neil

--
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