netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: protect skb->sk accesses from recursive dereference inside the stack

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: <1427914672.1808691.248212501.09E2ACED@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:	Wed, 01 Apr 2015 20:57:52 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: protect skb->sk accesses from recursive
 dereference inside the stack



On Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 20:40, David Miller wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
> > In case we do need more specific fragmentation setup semantics we would
> > need to go with Jiri's approach. Currently we don't care about sk_mc_loop
> > for kernel sockets, so it is easy to just shut them up. Other options
> > are safe as well.
> > 
> > Please review carefully!
> 
> As a short term solution I guess this is fine.
> 
> I'll let this sit for a day or two so others can review the change.

Ok, thanks!

We seem to have the same problem with skb->ignore_df which we
conditionally set by user request but multiple layer (e.g. tunnels) do
evaluate this boolean during stack traversal. IPv4 seems to be impacted
here as well, but I have to do more research on that. Maybe the
semantics seem to be wanted?

Bye,
Hannes
--
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