netdev - Re: [patch net-next 1/3] net: propagate sock pointer through netfilter hooks

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: <20140825140510.GB1871@nanopsycho.lan>
Date:	Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:05:10 +0200
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, jmorris@...ei.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, stephen@...workplumber.org,
	cwang@...pensource.com, pshelar@...ira.com,
	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, therbert@...gle.com,
	dborkman@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 1/3] net: propagate sock pointer through
 netfilter hooks

Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:33:39AM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 20:32:54 +0200
>
>> When output function (ip6_finish_output2 for example) needs to be called
>> with sock pointer, we need to push sock pointer through the netfilter
>> hooks. This patch does that.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>
>Ok, I'm going to admit that I am having second thoughts about this
>approach.  This is a quite large set of churn to fix this bug.
>
>However, in the same breath, I can't come up with a simpler way to
>propagate this information without the really unacceptable overhead of
>adding another sk_buff member.
>
>And even if we found some simple way to deal with that sk_mc_loop()
>test, ipv6 has other demons in this area.
>
>For example, look at what ip6_fragment() does, it also assumes skb->sk
>is an inet6 socket.
>
>	struct ipv6_pinfo *np = skb->sk ? inet6_sk(skb->sk) : NULL;
> ...
>	if (np && np->frag_size < mtu) {
>		if (np->frag_size)
>			mtu = np->frag_size;
>	}
>
>The rest of the skb->sk usage in these place is fine, as they are
>simply propagating socket ownership from one packet to another, rather
>than doing protocol specific things with them.

Dave, I see that the patchset is in state "Changes requested". I do not
think I understand what is needed to be done at this point. Would you
please tell me? 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