netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: dev_forward_skb(): Scrub packet's per-netns info only when crossing netns

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, 20 Mar 2018 18:39:47 +0200
From:   Liran Alon <LIRAN.ALON@...CLE.COM>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        idan.brown@...CLE.COM, yuval.shaia@...CLE.COM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dev_forward_skb(): Scrub packet's per-netns info
 only when crossing netns



On 20/03/18 18:34, David Miller wrote:
> From: Liran Alon <LIRAN.ALON@...CLE.COM>
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:11:49 +0200
>
>> 1. Do we want to make a flag for every bug that is user-space visible?
>> I think there is place for consideration on a per-case basis. I still
>> don't see how a user can utilize this behaviour. He is basically
>> loosing information (skb->mark) without this patch.
>
> And maybe people trying to work in this situation have added code to
> get the mark set some other way, or to validate that it is in fact
> zero after passing through, which we would break with this change.
>
> If it's set to zero now, it's reasonable to expect it to be zero.
>
> By changing it to non-zero, different rules and routes will match
> and this for sure has potential to break things.
>

OK.

What is your opinion in regards if it's OK to put the flag enabling this 
"fix" in /proc/sys/net/core? Do you think it's sufficient?