netdev - Re: Reproducible VLAN/e1000e crash in 2.6.36 vanilla.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4CC5F40D.8050302@candelatech.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:18:05 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Reproducible VLAN/e1000e crash in 2.6.36 vanilla.

On 10/25/2010 10:57 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> To re-create, setup 2 802.1q vlans on different physical interfaces on
> the same system,
> set up routing rules such that send-to-self works, and pass traffic
> (UDP/IPv4 in this case,
> but doesn't seem to matter).
> Stop traffic, then attempt to create additional 802.1q vlans on the same
> physical interfaces.
> The crash only appears to happen after having sent traffic on the
> interface.
>
> Likely it will also crash if one system is sending to another, but so
> far we've
> just tested sending-to-self.
>
> This appears very reproducible for us, and appears to be the same
> problem that
> I had reported against our hacked kernel here:
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg144748.html

Bleh, I think I see the problem.

If a NIC is in promis mode, it can receive VLAN packets for which there
are no VLAN devices.

static gro_result_t
vlan_gro_common(struct napi_struct *napi, struct vlan_group *grp,
                 unsigned int vlan_tci, struct sk_buff *skb)
{
         struct sk_buff *p;
         struct net_device *vlan_dev;
         u16 vlan_id;

         if (skb_bond_should_drop(skb, ACCESS_ONCE(skb->dev->master)))
                 skb->deliver_no_wcard = 1;

         skb->skb_iif = skb->dev->ifindex;
         __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag(skb, vlan_tci);
         vlan_id = vlan_tci & VLAN_VID_MASK;
         vlan_dev = vlan_group_get_device(grp, vlan_id);

         if (vlan_dev)
                 skb->dev = vlan_dev;
         else if (vlan_id) {
                 if (!(skb->dev->flags & IFF_PROMISC))
                         goto drop;
                 skb->pkt_type = PACKET_OTHERHOST;
         }

You hit that else branch, and then skb->dev remains the physical
device.

Later, it's passed to:

int vlan_hwaccel_do_receive(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
	struct net_device *dev = skb->dev;
	struct vlan_rx_stats     *rx_stats;

	skb->dev = vlan_dev_info(dev)->real_dev;
	netif_nit_deliver(skb);


which does no checking before assuming that skb->dev is a vlan
device.

Things go downhill rapidly after that.


Maybe this code in dev.c should check that skb->dev is
VLAN device before passing to the hwaccel code?

static int __netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
	struct packet_type *ptype, *pt_prev;
	rx_handler_func_t *rx_handler;
	struct net_device *orig_dev;
	struct net_device *master;
	struct net_device *null_or_orig;
	struct net_device *orig_or_bond;
	int ret = NET_RX_DROP;
	__be16 type;

	if (!netdev_tstamp_prequeue)
		net_timestamp_check(skb);

	if (vlan_tx_tag_present(skb) && vlan_hwaccel_do_receive(skb))
		return NET_RX_SUCCESS;


Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.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