netdev - Re: [FYI] xfrm: Don't lookup sk_policy for timewait sockets

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: <1428664454.10242.19.camel@googlemail.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:14:14 +0200
From:	Sebastian Poehn <sebastian.poehn@...il.com>
To:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	sebastian.poehn@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [FYI] xfrm: Don't lookup sk_policy for timewait sockets

On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 23:21 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> > Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 21:14:41 +0200
> > 
> > > I re-introduced this in fd158d79d33d3c under the assumption
> > > that the input path handles skb->sk timewait sockets correctly
> > > after all the early demux changes, afaics tcp edemux can also
> > > assign skb->sk timewait sockets.
> > > 
> > > Also, reporter mentions 3.8 as affected which should not assign
> > > tw sockets to skb->sk.
> > > 
> > > Even more strange, the reporters backtrace seems to indicate
> > > crash at end of forward path.
> > > 
> > > Sebastian, can you disable tw assignment via TPROXY in 3.12 just
> > > to see if it makes a difference?
> > > 
> > > [ not doing the assignment is safe provided you still set tproxy mark
> > >   on the skb; policy routing will ensure local delivery ].
> > 
> > My assumption in my analysis is that TPROXY writes the socket to
> > skb->sk, and it is also being forwarded.  And yes this is based
> > upon his backtrace.
> 
> Right.  However, I think we might have to make more changes than just tproxy.
> 
> If we have sockets bound to non-local addresses then why would tcp edemux
> not cause same issue?

Thanks for all the helpful inputs. I will try to provide some more information
and try a bit around with TPROXY not assigning tw sockets.

I will provide you with an update the next days.

Unfortunately this is a very rare event and (yet) impossible to reproduce in-house.


--
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