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]

Date:	Tue, 05 Jul 2016 20:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Cc:	sargun@...gun.me, netdev@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: Backport bpf: try harder on clones when writing into skb?
 [Commit: 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22]

From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:16:51 -0700

> 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?

I'll queued this up for 4.4 -stable.