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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4CC5F7EB.7010307@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:34:35 -0700
From:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
CC:	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Reproducible VLAN/e1000e crash in 2.6.36 vanilla.

On 10/25/2010 2:18 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> 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);
> 

Looks like this should be fixed on net-next,

bool vlan_hwaccel_do_receive(struct sk_buff **skbp)
{
        struct sk_buff *skb = *skbp;
        u16 vlan_id = skb->vlan_tci & VLAN_VID_MASK;
        struct net_device *vlan_dev;
        struct vlan_rx_stats *rx_stats;

        vlan_dev = vlan_find_dev(skb->dev, vlan_id);
        if (!vlan_dev) {
                if (vlan_id)
                        skb->pkt_type = PACKET_OTHERHOST;
                return false;
        }

If the vlan_dev is not found do not set skb->dev and return false then
in __netif_receive_skb,

      if (vlan_tx_tag_present(skb)) {
                if (pt_prev) {
                        ret = deliver_skb(skb, pt_prev, orig_dev);
                        pt_prev = NULL;
                }
                if (vlan_hwaccel_do_receive(&skb)) {
                        ret = __netif_receive_skb(skb);
                        goto out;
                } else if (unlikely(!skb))
                        goto out;
        }


> 
> 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
> 

--
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