netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] packet: always ensure that we pass hard_header_len bytes in skb

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: <20170127200639.GF25829@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:06:39 -0500
From:   Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] packet: always ensure that we pass
 hard_header_len bytes in skb_headlen() to the driver

On (01/27/17 14:29), Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> As your patch state, the contract is that any packet delivered to a
> driver has the entire L2 in its linear section. Drivers are not required
> to be robust against shorter packets, so there is no reason to test
> those.
> 
> One option is to limit your fix to known fixed-header protocols.
> In these cases hard_header_len is the minimum, so anything
> smaller must be dropped.

yes, but how would you you know that this is a fixed-header protocol
or a var-hdrlen protocol? AIUI the hard_header_len itself will not
tell you this info: it will be 77 for ax25, 14 for ethernet, 
but that does not tell me that ax25 is the "robust-er" driver
with a min requirement of 21 for the hdrlen.

That's why I was thinking of a IFF_L2_VARHDRLEN in the priv_flags
of the net_device.

> For protocols with variable header length it is fine to send packets
> shorter than hard_header_len, even with corrupted content (i.e.,
> even if they would fail that protocol's validate callback), as long as
> they exceed the minimum length. ax25 already has a min length
> check through its protocol-specific validate callback.

Another option that comes to mind.. the real thorn-in-the-flesh
here is the CAP_SYS_RAWIO check. Would it be a better idea to ask 
the test-suites (since they seem to be the major consumer of
that path) to use a special PF_PACKET socket option instead, that 
indicates "I'm testing robustness of the header, so let this one
slip past dev_validate_header at all times"?

It would mean the test suites would have to change slightly.

--Sowmini