netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] net: UDP gro

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: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1402141034180.25492@intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:34:56 -0800 (PST)
From:	Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
cc:	Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] net: UDP gro_receive accept csum=0



On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Tom Herbert wrote:

> >> > But even worse, is there a fundamental issue where udp4_csum_init is able
> >> > to change ip_summed to be CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY (either check == 0
> >> > or ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY) regardless of
> >> > skb->encapsulation, sending the packet into encap_rcv which could
> >> > ultimately incorrectly apply ip_summed on the inner TCP/UDP packet?
> >>
> >> By fundamental you mean performance issue or functionality issue (bug) or both?
> >>
> >
> > I would expect the check to be for ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. This
> > was the original thought behind commit:
> >
> > 0afb166 vxlan: Add capability of Rx checksum offload for inner packet
> 
> It looks like udp4_csum_init turns CHECKSUM_COMPLETE and check==0 into
> CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY which could bypass the checksum validation for
> the encapsulated packet. This would be a significant functionality
> bug. Unfortunately udp4_csum_init writes ip_summed without regard to
> encapsulation.
> 
> Seems like the logic in the UDP rcv path should be:
> 
> if ip_summed == CHECKSUM_COMPLETE, ensure this is same value when
> calling encap_rcv
> if ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY && !skb->encap change to
> CHECKSUM_NONE before calling encap_rcv
> if ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY && skb->encap ip_summed value is okay
> 
> In any case, we need to consider the orignal ip_summed value from the
> driver, not the one that udp4_csum_init (udp_gro or anywhere else in
> the path) would set.
> 
> Also, udp_gro_receive should be able to handle the case where
> ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY and !skb->encapsulation, that will
> be very common scenario. Probably CHECKSUM_NONE also.
> 

Yes, I now see your point and totaly agree. Thanks.
--
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