netdev - RE: [PATCH net v4] 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: <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD019E311@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
Date:	Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:34:56 +0000
From:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
To:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
CC:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net v4] xen-netback: fix fragment detection in checksum
 setup

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wei Liu [mailto:wei.liu2@...rix.com]
> Sent: 03 December 2013 14:29
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: Wei Liu; xen-devel@...ts.xen.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Zoltan Kiss;
> Ian Campbell; David Vrabel; David Miller
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4] xen-netback: fix fragment detection in checksum
> setup
> 
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:05:17PM +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> [...]
> > > >
> > > > -	header_size = skb->network_header + off + MAX_IPOPTLEN;
> > > > -	maybe_pull_tail(skb, header_size);
> > > > +	if (!maybe_pull_tail(skb, sizeof(struct iphdr), MAX_IP_HDR_LEN))
> > > > +		goto out;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I think you need to correctly update err to reflect this failure.
> > > Using -EPROTO will wrongly blame frontend while it is backend that's
> > > failing to process the packet.
> > >
> >
> > But a failure should only occur if the packet is malformed, so that would be
> a frontend error wouldn't it?
> >
> 
> __pskb_pull_tail may fail due to malloc failure.
> 
> However the return value of __pskb_pull_tail cannot reflect the wether
> the failure is due to malformed packet or OOM. Not sure what's the best
> solution here. What's the malformed packet you were talking about?
> 

For example, the pull would fail if the packet had an either_type of IP but didn't contain an IP header, or perhaps an IPv6 packet that had an incomplete option header sequence. I would have thought such a packet was a more likely cause of failure than OOM, so -EPROTO seems a reasonable best guess.

  Paul
--
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