netdev - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netfront: pull on receive skb may need to happen earlier

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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:53:15 +0100
From:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
CC:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Dion Kant <g.w.kant@...enet.nl>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netfront: pull on receive skb may need
 to happen earlier

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:50:44PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 11:46 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 10.07.13 at 12:04, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com> wrote:
> > > Jan, looking at the commit log, the overrun issue in
> > > xennet_get_responses was not introduced by __pskb_pull_tail. The call to
> > > xennet_fill_frags has always been in the same place.
> > 
> > I'm convinced it was: Prior to that commit, if the first response slot
> > contained up to RX_COPY_THRESHOLD bytes, it got entirely
> > consumed into the linear portion of the SKB, leaving the number of
> > fragments available for filling at MAX_SKB_FRAGS. Said commit
> > dropped the early copying, leaving the fragment count at 1
> > unconditionally, and now accumulates all of the response slots into
> > fragments, only pulling after all of them got filled in. It neglected to
> > realize - due to the count now always being 1 at the beginning - that
> > this can lead to MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1 frags getting filled, corrupting
> > memory.
> 
> That argument makes sense to me.
> 
> Is it possible to hit a scenario where we need to pull more than
> RX_COPY_THRESHOLD in order to fit all of the data in MAX_SKB_FRAGS ?
> 
> > Ian - I have to admit that I'm slightly irritated by you so far not
> > having participated at all in sorting out the fix for this bug that a
> > change of yours introduced.
> 
> Sorry I've been travelling and not following closely enough to realise
> this was related to something I'd done.
> 
> Does this relate somehow to the patch Annie has sent out recently too?
> 

No. That's not related.


Wei.


> Ian.
--
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