netdev - Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages

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, 15 Nov 2016 20:32:49 +0100
From:   Vicente Jiménez <googuy@...il.com>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] icmp: Restore resistence to abnormal messages

I agree that both patches try to solve the same problem in a very similar way.
Florian Westphal's patch do two more things:
1- add warning with pr_warn_ratelimited. I like this idea. I also
though about adding some message but I have no kernel experience and I
preferred to have just a working solution.
2- Check if the packet size is lower than (536 + 8). I think this is
not necessary because low values (even the zero case) is already
handled by the protocol. Also I don't understand why you choose this
value, it seems to be related to TCP MSS and the compared value is IP
packet size.

Finally, both patches decrement current packet by a value: Mine by 2
and Florian's by 8 bytes. Both arbitrary values. Personally I prefer
to go by small steps. If the small step fails, it just iterate again
and with 4 iterations, my patch also decrement the original value by 8
bytes (4x2).
Basically they are the same but my patch take smaller steps and miss
the warning message.

If David Miller thinks this could be a good addition, I'll add the
warning message to my patch.

We can also discuss the amount to subtract.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> David Miller <davem@...hat.com> wrote:
>> From: Vicente Jiménez <googuy@...il.com>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:49:43 +0100
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 7:36 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> >> From: Vicente Jimenez Aguilar <googuy@...il.com>
>> >> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 21:20:18 +0100
>> >>
>> >>> @@ -819,6 +820,12 @@ static bool icmp_unreach(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> >>>                               /* fall through */
>> >>>                       case 0:
>> >>>                               info = ntohs(icmph->un.frag.mtu);
>> >>> +                             /* Handle weird case where next hop MTU is
>> >>> +                              * equal to or exceeding dropped packet size
>> >>> +                              */
>> >>> +                             old_mtu = ntohs(iph->tot_len);
>> >>> +                             if (info >= old_mtu)
>> >>> +                                     info = old_mtu - 2;
>> >>
>> >> This isn't something the old code did.
>> >>
>> >> The old code behaved much differently.
>> >>
>> > I don't wanted to restore old behavior just fix a strange case that
>> > was handle by this code where the next hop MTU reported by the router
>> > is equal or greater than the actual path MTU. Because router
>> > information is wrong, we need a way to guess a good packet size
>> > ignoring router data. The simplest strategy that avoid odd numbers is
>> > reducing dropped packet size by 2.
>>
>> This whole approach seems arbitrary.
>>
>> You haven't discussed in any way, what causes this in the first place.
>> And what about that cause makes simply subtracting by 2 work well or
>> not.
>>
>> You have a very locallized, specific, situation on your end you want
>> to fix.  But we must accept changes that handle things generically and
>> in a way that would help more than just your specific case.
>
> FWIW this is similar to the patch I sent a while ago:
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/493997/
>
> I think in interest of robustness principle ("eat shit and don't die")
> one of these changes should go in :-|



-- 
saludos
vicente