netdev - Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

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: <5722140E.80702@candelatech.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2016 06:45:50 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
CC:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Vijay Pandurangan <vijayp@...ayp.ca>,
	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Evan Jones <ej@...njones.ca>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
	Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>,
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.



On 04/28/2016 03:29 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2016-04-27, 17:14:44 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>> On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>> Hi Ben,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>>>>> On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.2.80-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>>>> I would be careful about this.  It causes regressions when sending
>>>>> PACKET_SOCKET buffers from user-space to veth devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a proposed upstream fix for the regression, but it has not gone
>>>>> into the tree as far as I know.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg370436.html
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> OK, I'll drop this for now.
>>>
>>> The fall out from not having this patch is in my opinion a bigger
>>> fallout than not having this patch. This patch fixes silent data
>>> corruption vs. the problem Ben Greear is talking about, which might not
>>> be that a common usage.
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>>
>>> Bye,
>>> Hannes
>>>
>>
>> This patch from Cong Wang seems to fix the regression for me, I think it should be added and
>> tested in the main tree, and then apply them to stable as a pair.
>>
>> http://dmz2.candelatech.com/?p=linux-4.4.dev.y/.git;a=commitdiff;h=8153e983c0e5eba1aafe1fc296248ed2a553f1ac;hp=454b07405d694dad52e7f41af5816eed0190da8a
>
> Actually, no, this is not really a regression.
>
> If you capture packets on a device with checksum offloading enabled,
> the TCP/UDP checksum isn't filled.  veth also behaves that way.  What
> the "veth: don't modify ip_summed" patch does is enable proper
> checksum validation on veth.  This really was a bug in veth.
>
> Cong's patch would also break cases where we choose to inject packets
> with invalid checksums, and they would now be accepted as correct.
>
> Your use case is invalid, it just happened to work because of a
> bug.  If you want the stack to fill checksums so that you want capture
> and reinject packets, you have to disable checksum offloading (or
> compute the checksum yourself in userspace).

Disabling checksum offloading or computing in user-space (and then
recomputing in veth to verify the checksum?) is a huge performance loss.

Maybe we could add a socket option to enable Cong's patch on a per-socket
basis?  That way my use-case can still work and you can have this new
behaviour by default?

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com