netdev - Re: [RFC] packet: handle too big packets for PACKET

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 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:	Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:54:59 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] packet: handle too big packets for PACKET_V3

On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 02:43 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:

> Someone could use GRO to create packet trains to hide from intrustion
> detection systems, which maybe are the main user of TPACKET_V3. I don't
> think this is a good idea.

Presumably these tools already use a large enough bloc_size, and not a
4KB one ;)

Even without GRO, a jumbo frame (9K) can trigger the bug.

I do not think we need to skb_gso_segment() for the cases user setup a
really small bloc_size. This looks like a lot of consumed cycles (we
even might have to recompute the TCP checksums)



--
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