netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: skbuff: skb_vlan_push: Fix wrong unwinding of skb->data after __vlan_insert

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:42:35 +0300
From:   Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: skbuff: skb_vlan_push: Fix wrong unwinding
 of skb->data after __vlan_insert_tag call

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:43:38 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> Couldn't we end up with 1) for the act_vlan case when we'd have the
> offset-adjusted skb_vlan_push() fix from here, where we'd then redirect
> to ingress where skb_vlan_pop() would be called? If I'm not missing
> something, skb_vlan_push() would then point to the data location of 1)
> and with your other proposed direct netif_receive_skb() patch, no
> further skb->data adjustments would be done, right?

Right. Then skb_vlan_pop() should expect either (1) or (2).

> Another potential issue (but unrelated to this fix here) I just noticed
> is, whether act_vlan might have the same problem as we fixed in 8065694e6519
> ("bpf: fix checksum for vlan push/pop helper"). So potentially, we could
> end up fixing CHECKSUM_COMPLETE wrongly on ingress, since these 14 bytes
> are already pulled out of the sum at that point.
> 
> > Should we adjust "offset" back, only if resulting offset is >=14 ?  
> 
> If also the checksum one might end up as an issue, maybe it's just best
> to go through the pain and do the push/pull for data plus csum, so both
> skb_vlan_*() functions see the frame starting from mac header temporarily?

Although not related to this specific fix, I see 2 ways addressing the
rcsum problem:

1. Per your suggestion, skb_vlan_*() to expect 'data' at mac_header
   That would simplify things; for this suggested 'data unwind' fix as well

2. Within skb_vlan_*(), deduct (according to initial offset) whether
   we're already "pulled out" of the rcsum, and not invoke the
   skb_postpull/push_rcsum update.

Will meditate some more.

Thanks
Shmulik