netdev - Re: Backport bpf: try harder on clones when writing into skb? [Commit: 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22]

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: <20160706021649.GA82976@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:16:51 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:	Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: Backport bpf: try harder on clones when writing into skb?
 [Commit: 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22]

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 08:35:18AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> Does it make sense to backport
> 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22 from 4.6 to the longterm
> (4.4) release? I can trivially recreate the issue represented by
> 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22 by attaching a eBPF filter
> that clones an ingress ICMP packet, and then tries to set the
> destination MAC address.
> 
> It seems like the patch applies cleanly to 4.4. I cherry-picked it,
> and rebuilt my kernel, and at least in the trivial test case passes.

Makes sense to me, especially since it's lts.
Daniel, thoughts?