netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local sockets if we don't cross address family

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:	Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hannes@...essinduktion.org
Cc:	steffen.klassert@...unet.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	vi0oss@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] xfrm{4,6}: only report errors back to local
 sockets if we don't cross address family

From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:40:38 +0200

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:26:11PM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30:17AM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:21:18AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 04:50:17PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> > > > xfrm6_local_error/xfrm4_tunnel_check_size report mtu errors back to a
>> > > > socket in case it is locally generated. If the packet first traversed
>> > > > a 6in4/4in6 tunnel before passing the xfrm layer, we could get a panic
>> > > > because of address family type mismatch in the error reporting functions.
>> > > > 
>> > > 
>> > > So the skb is still owned by a socket of the inner address family.
>> > > Is this intentional? Maybe the ndo_start_xmit() function of the
>> > > tunnel device should orphan the skb if we tunnel the packet
>> > > through a different address family.
>> > 
>> > I thought about this, too. But then we would stop accounting the data
>> > to the socket while it is travelling the stack. I don't know about the
>> > possible problems resulting from this.
>> > 
>> 
>> I'm also not absolutely sure, but we reinsert the packet to
>> the ipv4/ipv6 output path which is also used to output forwarded
>> packets. So the code should be prepared for handling a skb without
>> socket context.
>> 
>> There are already situations where we orphan the skb in some
>> tunnel xmit functions. For example if we tunnel through
>> another namespace.
> 
> Somehow this seems the way to go.

Agreed, I think we should just orphan the SKB.

There was talk about this when the skb_scrub_packet() interface was
added, maybe we should do it unconditionally after all.
--
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