netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: Replace infinite loop on recvmsg bug with proper crashusers

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: <1352307902.3140.4588.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:05:02 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc:	Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Replace infinite loop on recvmsg bug with proper
 crashusers

On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 11:43 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:

> dude, look at the bug reports I just pointed you at.
> People _are_ aware there are bugs there.
> 

If I remember well, I helped to fix some of them.

> If you turn that into a BUG() those reports would never have been filed.
> How is that increasing awareness ?  People are going to see wedged computers,
> and hit the reset button. If we're lucky, we'll get photos of someone lucky
> enough to have hit it while at the console, not in X. But this is a huge
> step backwards for debugability.
> 
>  > I understand a distro maintainer has its own choices, but for upstream
>  > kernel we want to have early reports.
> 
> I'm running out of ways to word this, but I'll try again.
> You won't get those early reports if you turn this into a BUG().
> 
>  > This bug is fatal and a security issue. BUG() is appropriate.
> 
> turning a bug into a remote DoS is also a security issue.
> 

Apparently in some cases we can loop and fill the syslog, or
else Julius wouldnt have sent a patch.

So the proper fix is to emit this message only once, and to find
a way to alert the user security is compromised.

So if BUG() isnt good, just use WARN_ON_ONCE()

I feel that WARN_ON_ONCE() wont be clear enough to the user, especially
if we recover from this by closing the tcp session, exactly as if we
received a proper FIN.

Really if you object a BUG() here, I cant understand you didnt shout to
other BUG() uses in the kernel.



--
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