netdev - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/6] xen-netback: coalesce slots before copying

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: <515182E2.50103@citrix.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:13:38 +0000
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
CC:	Wei Liu <liuw@...w.name>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"annie.li@...cle.com" <annie.li@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/6] xen-netback: coalesce slots before copying

On 25/03/13 19:09, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 06:29:29PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting move the default macro value to header file? It is
>>> just an estimation, I have no knowledge of the accurate maximum value,
>>> so I think make it part of the protocol a bad idea.
>>
>> How is the author of a new frontend supposed to know how many slots they
>> can use per packet if it is not precisely defined?
>>
> 
> A new frontend shuold use the scheme you mentioned below to get the
> maximum value. For old frontends that cannot be fixed, administrator can
> configure max_skb_slots to accommodate their need.

I'm happy to the threshold for fatal errors to be configurable via a
module parameter.

>>> Do you have a handle on the maximum value?
>>
>> Backends should provide the value to the frontend via a xenstore key
>> (e.g., max-slots-per-frame).  This value should be at least 18 (the
>> historical value of MAX_SKB_FRAGS).
>>
>> The frontend may use up to this specified value or 17 if the
>> max-slots-per-frame key is missing.
>>
>> Supporting at least 18 in the backend is required for existing
>> frontends.  Limiting frontends to 17 allows them to work with all
>> backends (including recent Linux version that only supported 17).
>>
>> It's not clear why 19 or 20 were suggested as possible values.  I
>> checked back to 2.6.18 and MAX_SKB_FRAGS there is (65536/PAGE_SIZE + 2)
> 
> Because the check is >= MAX_SKB_FRAGS originally and James Harper told
> me that "Windows stops counting on 20".
> 
>> == 18.
>>
>> Separately, it may be sensible for the backend to drop packets with more
>> frags than max-slots-per-frame up to some threshold where anything more
>> is considered malicious (i.e., 1 - 18 slots is a valid packet, 19-20 are
>> dropped and 21 or more is a fatal error).
>>
> 
> Why drop the packet when we are able to process it? Frontend cannot know
> it has crossed the line anyway.

Because it's a change to the protocol and we do not want to do this for
a regression fix.

As a separate fix we can consider increasing the number of slots
per-packet once there is a mechanism to report this to the front end.

David
--
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