netdev - Re: [PATCH net] netlink: use jhash as hashfn for rhashtable

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]

Date:	Tue, 09 Dec 2014 23:56:40 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, tgraf@...g.ch,
	hannes@...essinduktion.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netlink: use jhash as hashfn for rhashtable

On 12/09/2014 08:38 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
> Date: Mon,  8 Dec 2014 17:30:30 +0100
>
>> For netlink, we shouldn't be using arch_fast_hash() as a hashing
>> discipline, but rather jhash() instead.
>>
>> Since netlink sockets can be opened by any user, a local attacker
>> would be able to easily create collisions with the DPDK-derived
>> arch_fast_hash(), which trades off performance for security by
>> using crc32 CPU instructions on x86_64.
>>
>> While it might have a legimite use case in other places, it should
>> be avoided in netlink context, though. As rhashtable's API is very
>> flexible, we could later on still decide on other hashing disciplines,
>> if legitimate.
>>
>> Reference: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1844123
>> Fixes: e341694e3eb5 ("netlink: Convert netlink_lookup() to use RCU protected hash table")
>> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
>> Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
>> Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
>
> I think I've seen enough of this.
>
> First of all, you've left all of the example initializers in the
> rhashtable implementation recommending to use arch_fast_hash.
>
> Secondly, after this, openvswitch (and nfsd, ugh) are the only users
> remaining.   Even though there have been claims that using this
> doesn't expose to openvswitch to being hash attackable, I'm still
> not entirely convinced that an attacker cannot hurt performance
> of an OVS node as a result of this.
>
> I think this whole scheme should be reverted, whatever cycles
> openvswitch gains by using crc32c instructions is far outweighed
> by the confusion this has caused and all of this infrastructure
> created for just one or two users.
>
> Someone send me a patch to revert all of the arch_fast_hash
> stuff, and every reference thereof, or else I'll do it myself.

Hm, this netlink patch was actually meant to be small for -stable.

But fair enough, I can look into removing arch_fast_hash() bits
entirely, sure - we thought it was useful in that area as it needs
less than half the cycles (all discussed in [1]) as opposed to
jhash for computing the hash value in ovs, where such computations
are being done very frequently and the flow key structure size seems
to keep growing.

Regarding an attacker wanting to hurt performance, upcalls into ovs
user space component to dynamically install such colliding in-kernel
ovs flow-cache entries would be the much bigger concern then, as a
pre-required step, imho. Anyway, if you feel strong about it, lets
just remove it.

Thanks.

   [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/299369/
--
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