netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: remove MTU limits on a few ether

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: <20161021154851.GE11396@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:48:51 -0400
From:   Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen <asbjorn@...jorn.st>,
        R Parameswaran <parameswaran.r7@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: remove MTU limits on a few ether_setup callers

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:44:41AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:42:46PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > Le 20/10/2016 à 20:25, Jarod Wilson a écrit :
> > > These few drivers call ether_setup(), but have no ndo_change_mtu, and thus
> > > were overlooked for changes to MTU range checking behavior. They
> > > previously had no range checks, so for feature-parity, set their min_mtu
> > > to 0 and max_mtu to ETH_MAX_MTU (65535), instead of the 68 and 1500
> > > inherited from the ether_setup() changes. Fine-tuning can come after we get
> > > back to full feature-parity here.
> > > 
> > > CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > Reported-by: Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen <asbjorn@...jorn.st>
> > > CC: Asbjoern Sloth Toennesen <asbjorn@...jorn.st>
> > > CC: R Parameswaran <parameswaran.r7@...il.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > > diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> > > index 68714a5..d0c7bce 100644
> > > --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> > > +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> > > @@ -1247,6 +1247,8 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_switch *ds, struct device *parent,
> > >  	slave_dev->priv_flags |= IFF_NO_QUEUE;
> > >  	slave_dev->netdev_ops = &dsa_slave_netdev_ops;
> > >  	slave_dev->switchdev_ops = &dsa_slave_switchdev_ops;
> > > +	slave_dev->min_mtu = 0;
> > > +	slave_dev->max_mtu = ETH_MAX_MTU;
> > >  	SET_NETDEV_DEVTYPE(slave_dev, &dsa_type);
> > 
> > Actually for DSA, a reasonable minimum is probably 68 for the following
> > reasons: ETH_ZLEN of 60 bytes + FCS (4 bytes) + 2/4/8 bytes of
> > Ethernet switch tag (which is dependent on the tagging protocol
> > used).
> 
> Humm, isn't the switch tag added by the layer below this? So this
> should be - 2/4/8 bytes, so that the assembled frame that actually
> hits the conduit interface has an MTU of 64.

I'm all for fine-tuning things to be more correct, but my initial approach
here was to restore the ranges that were previously there, and DSA had no
upper or lower bounds checks. I'm not at all familiar with DSA either way.

> > Such an Ethernet interface would submit packets through the conduit
> > interface which is connected to an Ethernet switches, and those
> > typically discard packets smaller than 64 bytes +/- their custom tag
> > length.
> 
> I have a purely theoretical observation, i.e. i have not checked the
> datasheets. You can also control some of the Marvell switches by
> sending it ethernet frames containing commands. Most commands are 4
> bytes long. So an Ethernet header + 4 bytes is < 64. I expect the
> switch will accept command frames which are padded to stop them being
> runts. Also, such frames will be submitted to the conduit interface,
> not the slave interface.

So presumably, slave_dev->min_mtu wouldn't come into play in that
scenario, and we wouldn't break that functionality if min_mtu did get get
to 64 or 68 or whatever > 0.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com