netdev - Re: IPv6-UDP 0x0000 checksum

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:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:49:06 +0100
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6-UDP 0x0000 checksum

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 05:44 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 14:27 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > It looks like right now we may have a hardware bug and accept
> > 0x0000 as
> > valid, when the outcome of the calculation is 0xffff.
> > 
> > What do you think we should do about this?
> > 
> > We could ignore the issue entirely, since 0 wasn't ever supposed to
> > be
> > sent anyway - but then we don't drop frames that we should drop. I
> > didn't manage to find the code in the IPv6/UDP stack that even does
> > that, but I assume it's there somewhere.
> > 
> > Alternatively, we could parse the packet to find the checksum
> > inside,
> > and if it's 0 then don't report CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY, but that
> > seems
> > rather expensive/difficult due to the IPv6 variable header and all
> > that. If we wanted to go this route, are there any helper functions
> > for
> > this?
> > 
> > Unfortunately, in the current devices, we neither have a complete
> > indication that the packet was even UDP-IPv6, nor do we have the
> > raw
> > csum or anything like that. I think they're adding that to the next
> > hardware spin, but we probably need to address this issue now.

> Is this a xmit or rcv problem ?

Oops, sorry - receive. We can only indicate "CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY",
nothing more advanced right now, but right now we'd indicate that if
the packet had 0x0000 in the checksum field, but should've had 0xffff.

On TX I believe we actually do in HW exactly what your patch just did.

johannes