netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 7/8] net/mlx5e: XDP TX forwarding support

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: <20160920205939.6a4522df@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2016 20:59:39 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Rana Shahout <ranas@...lanox.com>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/8] net/mlx5e: XDP TX forwarding support

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:39:20 -0700
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:45 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 
> > because 'div by zero' is an abnormal situation that shouldn't be exploited.
> > Meaning if xdp program is doing DoS prevention and it has a bug that
> > attacker can now exploit by sending a crafted packet that causes
> > 'div by zero' and kernel will warn then attack got successful.
> > Therefore it has to be silent drop.  
> 
> A silent drop means a genuine error in a BPF program might be never
> caught, since a tracepoint might never be enabled.

I do see your point. But we can document our way out of it.
 
> > tracpoint in such case is great, since the user can do debugging with it
> > and even monitoring 24/7 and if suddenly the control plan sees a lot
> > of such trace_xdp_abotred events, it can disable that tracepoint to avoid
> > spam and adjust the program or act on attack some other way.
> > Hardcoded warnings and counters are not generic enough for all
> > the use cases people want to throw at XDP.
> > The tracepoints idea is awesome, in a sense that it's optional.  
> 
> 
> Note that tracepoints are optional in a kernel.

Well, that is a good thing, as it can be compiled out (as that provides
an option for zero cost).


> Many existing supervision infrastructures collect device snmp
> counters, and run as unprivileged programs. 

A supervision infrastructures is a valid use-case. It again indicate
that such XDP stats need to structured, not just a random driver
specific ethtool counter, to make it easy for such collection daemons.


> tracepoints might not fit the need here, compared to a mere
> tx_ring->tx_drops++

I do see your point.  I really liked the tracepoint idea, but now I'm
uncertain again...


I do have a use-case where I want to use the NIC HW-RX-ingress-overflow
and TX-overflow drop indicators, but I don't want to tie it into this
discussion.  The abort and error indicators a not relevant for that
use-case.

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer