[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100120.162135.41689739.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:21:35 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, nhorman@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [net-2.6 PATCH 1/2] e1000: enhance frame fragment detection
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:15:38 -0800
> From: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
>
> Originally From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> Modified by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
>
> 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>
> Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Applied.
--
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