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: <CAPwn2JT6e=f0q=Q5rbqF_6ZejLyj+Ysyk1eP5KTBkGLz-Mpfqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:46:52 +0800
From:	Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Cc:	network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] net/ipv6: add sysctl option accept_ra_min_hop_limit

Hi Yoshifuji-san,

Please see comments in the mail.

2015-07-29 18:39 GMT+08:00 YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
<hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for you updated patch.
>
> Hangbin Liu wrote:
>> Commit 6fd99094de2b ("ipv6: Don't reduce hop limit for an interface")
>> disabled accept hop limit from RA if it is higher than the current hop
>> limit for security stuff. But this behavior kind of break the RFC definition.
>>
>> RFC 4861, 6.3.4.  Processing Received Router Advertisements
>>    A Router Advertisement field (e.g., Cur Hop Limit, Reachable Time,
>>    and Retrans Timer) may contain a value denoting that it is
>>    unspecified.  In such cases, the parameter should be ignored and the
>>    host should continue using whatever value it is already using.
>>
>>    If the received Cur Hop Limit value is non-zero, the host SHOULD set
>>    its CurHopLimit variable to the received value.
>>
>> So add sysctl option accept_ra_min_hop_limit to let user choose the minimum
>> hop limit value they can accept from RA. And set default to 1 to meet RFC
>> standards.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt |  8 ++++++++
>>  include/linux/ipv6.h                   |  1 +
>>  include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h              |  1 +
>>  net/ipv6/addrconf.c                    | 10 ++++++++++
>>  net/ipv6/ndisc.c                       |  8 +++-----
>>  5 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt b/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt
>> index 5fae770..ced0a38 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt
>> @@ -1346,6 +1346,14 @@ accept_ra_pinfo - BOOLEAN
>>       Functional default: enabled if accept_ra is enabled.
>>                           disabled if accept_ra is disabled.
>>
>> +accept_ra_min_hop_limit - INTEGER
>> +     Minimum hop limit Information in Router Advertisement.
>> +
>> +     Hop limit Information in Router Advertisement less than this
>> +     variable shall be ignored.
>> +
>> +     Default: 1
>> +
>>  accept_ra_rt_info_max_plen - INTEGER
>>       Maximum prefix length of Route Information in RA.
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/ipv6.h b/include/linux/ipv6.h
>> index 82806c6..ac01ab4 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/ipv6.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/ipv6.h
>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ struct ipv6_devconf {
>>       __s32           max_addresses;
>>       __s32           accept_ra_defrtr;
>>       __s32           accept_ra_pinfo;
>> +     __s32           accept_ra_min_hop_limit;
>
> accept_ra_defrtr
> accept_ra_min_hop_limit
> accept_ra_pinfo
> (matter of taste)

Ah yes, alphabet order, that make sense.

>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
>>       __s32           accept_ra_rtr_pref;
>>       __s32           rtr_probe_interval;
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h b/include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h
>> index 5efa54a..68094e33 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ipv6.h
>> @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ enum {
>>       DEVCONF_USE_OPTIMISTIC,
>>       DEVCONF_ACCEPT_RA_MTU,
>>       DEVCONF_STABLE_SECRET,
>> +     DEVCONF_ACCEPT_RA_MIN_HOP_LIMIT,
>>       DEVCONF_MAX
>>  };
>>
>
> This patch cannot apply to current net-next.  Please rebase your patch.

Got it, I will fix the patch based on latest net-next.

>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
>> index 21c2c81..77df8f2 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
>> @@ -196,6 +196,7 @@ static struct ipv6_devconf ipv6_devconf __read_mostly = {
>>       .accept_ra_defrtr       = 1,
>>       .accept_ra_from_local   = 0,
>>       .accept_ra_pinfo        = 1,
>> +     .accept_ra_min_hop_limit= 1,
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
>>       .accept_ra_rtr_pref     = 1,
>>       .rtr_probe_interval     = 60 * HZ,
>> @@ -237,6 +238,7 @@ static struct ipv6_devconf ipv6_devconf_dflt __read_mostly = {
>>       .accept_ra_defrtr       = 1,
>>       .accept_ra_from_local   = 0,
>>       .accept_ra_pinfo        = 1,
>> +     .accept_ra_min_hop_limit= 1,
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
>>       .accept_ra_rtr_pref     = 1,
>>       .rtr_probe_interval     = 60 * HZ,
>> @@ -4561,6 +4563,7 @@ static inline void ipv6_store_devconf(struct ipv6_devconf *cnf,
>>       array[DEVCONF_MAX_ADDRESSES] = cnf->max_addresses;
>>       array[DEVCONF_ACCEPT_RA_DEFRTR] = cnf->accept_ra_defrtr;
>>       array[DEVCONF_ACCEPT_RA_PINFO] = cnf->accept_ra_pinfo;
>> +     array[DEVCONF_ACCEPT_RA_MIN_HOP_LIMIT] = cnf->accept_ra_min_hop_limit;
>
> DEFRTR, MIN_HOP_LIMIT then PINFO
> (matter of taste)

OK, will fix it.

>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
>>       array[DEVCONF_ACCEPT_RA_RTR_PREF] = cnf->accept_ra_rtr_pref;
>>       array[DEVCONF_RTR_PROBE_INTERVAL] =
>> @@ -5462,6 +5465,13 @@ static struct addrconf_sysctl_table
>>                       .mode           = 0644,
>>                       .proc_handler   = proc_dointvec,
>>               },
>> +             {
>> +                     .procname       = "accept_ra_min_hop_limit",
>> +                     .data           = &ipv6_devconf.accept_ra_min_hop_limit,
>> +                     .maxlen         = sizeof(int),
>> +                     .mode           = 0644,
>> +                     .proc_handler   = proc_dointvec,
>> +             },
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
>>               {
>>                       .procname       = "accept_ra_rtr_pref",
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ndisc.c b/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
>> index 0a05b35..acda056 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
>> @@ -1226,13 +1226,11 @@ static void ndisc_router_discovery(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>       if (rt)
>>               rt6_set_expires(rt, jiffies + (HZ * lifetime));
>>       if (ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit) {
>> -             /* Only set hop_limit on the interface if it is higher than
>> -              * the current hop_limit.
>> -              */
>> -             if (in6_dev->cnf.hop_limit < ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit) {
>> +             if (in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra_min_hop_limit <= ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit &&
>> +                 ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit != 0) {
>>                       in6_dev->cnf.hop_limit = ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit;
>>               } else {
>> -                     ND_PRINTK(2, warn, "RA: Got route advertisement with lower hop_limit than current\n");
>> +                     ND_PRINTK(2, warn, "RA: Got route advertisement with lower hop_limit than minimum\n");
>>               }
>>               if (rt)
>>                       dst_metric_set(&rt->dst, RTAX_HOPLIMIT,
>>
>
> Please see my comments against your previous patch.

I pasted you comments here so we don't need to discuss in two mails :)

>
> ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit != 0 is checkd by outer "if".

Yes, thanks for your reminding :)

>
> You do not need to update cnf.hop_limit if it is already equal to
> hop limit received.

We need to update cnf.hop_limit if min_hop_limit <= icmp6_hop_limit. e.g.
current hop limit is 64, min hop limit is 1 and ra hop limit is 32, then we need
update current hop limit to 32.

>
> How about ignoring hop limit without message is configured value is
> larger than 255, BTW?

Although set accept_ra_min_hop_limit great than 255 is meaningless,  there
is also no need to check it since icmp6_hop_limit will not larger than 255. so

+               if (in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra_min_hop_limit <= 255 &&
+                   in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra_min_hop_limit <=
ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit )
                        in6_dev->cnf.hop_limit = ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit;

is  duplicated check. How do you think?

>
>>               if (rt)
>>                       dst_metric_set(&rt->dst, RTAX_HOPLIMIT,
>>
>
> This can be inside the inner "if".

OK, will move it.


Best Regards
Hangbin
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ