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]

Date:	Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:13:52 -0400
From:	Vijay Pandurangan <vijayp@...ayp.ca>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <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>,
	Cong Wang <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 Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface
>> to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to
>> follow it. Broken checksum processing is really hard to detect and
>> debug.
>>
>> CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY means that some number of _specific_ checksums
>> (indicated by csum_level) have been verified to be correct in a
>> packet. Blindly promoting CHECKSUM_NONE to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY is
>> never right. If CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY is set in such a manner but the
>> checksum it would refer to has not been verified and is incorrect this
>> is a major bug.
>
>
> Suppose I know that the packet received on a packet-socket has
> already been verified by a NIC that supports hardware checksumming.
>
> Then, I want to transmit it on a veth interface using a second
> packet socket.  I do not want veth to recalculate the checksum on
> transmit, nor to validate it on the peer veth on receive, because I do
> not want to waste the CPU cycles.  I am assuming that my app is not
> accidentally corrupting frames, so the checksum can never be bad.
>
> How should the checksumming be configured for the packets going into
> the packet-socket from user-space?


It seems like that only the receiver should decide whether or not to
checksum packets on the veth, not the sender.

How about:

We could add a receiving socket option for "don't checksum packets
received from a veth when the other side has marked them as
elide-checksum-suggested" (similar to UDP_NOCHECKSUM), and a sending
socket option for "mark all data sent via this socket to a veth as
elide-checksum-suggested".

So the process would be:

Writer:
1. open read socket
2. open write socket, with option elide-checksum-for-veth-suggested
3. write data

Reader:
1. open read socket with "follow-elide-checksum-suggestions-on-veth"
2. read data

The kernel / module would then need to persist the flag on all packets
that traverse a veth, and drop these data when they leave the veth
module.


>
>
> Also, I might want to send raw frames that do have
> broken checksums (lets assume a real NIC, not veth), and I want them
> to hit the wire with those bad checksums.
>
>
> How do I configure the checksumming in this case?


Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is already possible now. You
can have packets with incorrect checksum hitting the wire as is. What
you cannot do is instruct the receiving end to ignore the checksum
from the sending end when using a physical device (and something I
think we should mimic on the sending device).


>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
>
>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/30/2016 11:33 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 12:29 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> It really is.  Even though the old behaviour was a bug (raw packets
>>>> should not be changed), if there are real applications that depend on
>>>> that then we have to keep those applications working somehow.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To be honest, I fail to see why the old behaviour is a bug when sending
>>> raw packets from user-space.  If raw packets should not be changed, then
>>> we need some way to specify what the checksum setting is to begin with,
>>> otherwise, user-space has not enough control.
>>>
>>> A socket option for new programs, and sysctl configurable defaults for raw
>>> sockets
>>> for old binary programs would be sufficient I think.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
>>> Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
> Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com