netdev - RE: [PATCH net v2] xen-netback: fix fragment detection in checksum setup

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: <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD0195CB0@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
Date:	Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:10:01 +0000
From:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
To:	annie li <annie.li@...cle.com>
CC:	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net v2] xen-netback: fix fragment detection in checksum
 setup

> -----Original Message-----
> From: annie li [mailto:annie.li@...cle.com]
> Sent: 29 November 2013 05:36
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xen.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Wei Liu; Ian Campbell;
> David Vrabel
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] xen-netback: fix fragment detection in checksum
> setup
> 
> 
> On 2013/11/28 21:23, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > The code to detect fragments in checksum_setup() was missing for IPv4
> and
> > too eager for IPv6. (It transpires that Windows seems to send IPv6 packets
> > with a fragment header even if they are not a fragment - i.e. offset is zero,
> > and M bit is not set).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@...rix.com>
> > Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
> > Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
> > Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
> > ---
> > v2
> >
> > - Added comments noting what fragment/offset masks mean
> >
> >   drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c |   33
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c b/drivers/net/xen-
> netback/netback.c
> > index 919b650..c7464d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> > @@ -1165,15 +1165,28 @@ static int checksum_setup_ip(struct xenvif *vif,
> struct sk_buff *skb,
> >   	struct iphdr *iph = (void *)skb->data;
> >   	unsigned int header_size;
> >   	unsigned int off;
> > +	bool fragment;
> >   	int err = -EPROTO;
> >
> > +	fragment = false;
> 
> Is it better to initialize fragment directly as following?
> bool fragment = false;
> 

I think that's a matter of personal taste. I tend to favour this style.

  Paul

> > +
> >   	off = sizeof(struct iphdr);
> >
> >   	header_size = skb->network_header + off + MAX_IPOPTLEN;
> >   	maybe_pull_tail(skb, header_size);
> >
> > +	/* 3fff -> fragment offset != 0 OR more fragments */
> > +	if (ntohs(iph->frag_off) & 0x3fff)
> > +		fragment = true;
> > +
> >   	off = iph->ihl * 4;
> >
> > +	if (fragment) {
> > +		if (net_ratelimit())
> > +			netdev_err(vif->dev, "Packet is a fragment!\n");
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> >   	switch (iph->protocol) {
> >   	case IPPROTO_TCP:
> >   		if (!skb_partial_csum_set(skb, off,
> > @@ -1237,6 +1250,7 @@ static int checksum_setup_ipv6(struct xenvif *vif,
> struct sk_buff *skb,
> >   	bool fragment;
> >   	bool done;
> >
> > +	fragment = false;
> >   	done = false;
> 
> Same as above for "done" and "fragment"...
> 
> Thanks
> Annie