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: <572155F4.10405@candelatech.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:14:44 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	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 04/27/2016 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



diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
index da1ae0e..f8cc758 100644 (file)
--- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
+++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
@@ -1926,6 +1926,7 @@ retry:
                 goto out_unlock;
         }

+       skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
         skb->protocol = proto;
         skb->dev = dev;
         skb->priority = sk->sk_priority;
@@ -2352,6 +2353,7 @@ static int tpacket_fill_skb(struct packet_sock *po, struct sk_buff *skb,

         ph.raw = frame;

+       skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
         skb->protocol = proto;
         skb->dev = dev;
         skb->priority = po->sk.sk_priority;
@@ -2776,6 +2778,7 @@ static int packet_snd(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len)
                 goto out_free;
         }

+       skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
         skb->protocol = proto;
         skb->dev = dev;
         skb->priority = sk->sk_priority;

Thanks,
Ben

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