netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v2 4/8] udp: Do not pass checksum as a parameter to GSO segmentation

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: <CAF=yD-KXbq1ag5JSovtWDNWjPFr_A28DjkK_buc8J4P6ae4ifA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 6 May 2018 19:17:29 +0200
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 4/8] udp: Do not pass checksum as a parameter
 to GSO segmentation

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Alexander Duyck
<alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 3:01 AM, Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Alexander Duyck
>> <alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
>>> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
>>>
>>> This patch is meant to allow us to avoid having to recompute the checksum
>>> from scratch and have it passed as a parameter.
>>>
>>> Instead of taking that approach we can take advantage of the fact that the
>>> length that was used to compute the existing checksum is included in the
>>> UDP header. If we cancel that out by adding the value XOR with 0xFFFF we
>>> can then just add the new length in and fold that into the new result.
>>>
>>> I think this may be fixing a checksum bug in the original code as well
>>> since the checksum that was passed included the UDP header in the checksum
>>> computation, but then excluded it for the adjustment on the last frame. I
>>> believe this may have an effect on things in the cases where the two differ
>>> by bits that would result in things crossing the byte boundaries.
>>
>> The replacement code, below, subtracts original payload size then adds
>> the new payload size. mss here excludes the udp header size.
>>
>>>                 /* last packet can be partial gso_size */
>>> -               if (!seg->next)
>>> -                       csum_replace2(&uh->check, htons(mss),
>>> -                                     htons(seg->len - hdrlen - sizeof(*uh)));
>
> That is my point. When you calculated your checksum you included the
> UDP header in the calculation.
>
> -       return __udp_gso_segment(gso_skb, features,
> -                                udp_v4_check(sizeof(struct udphdr) + mss,
> -                                             iph->saddr, iph->daddr, 0));
>
> Basically the problem is in one spot you are adding the sizeof(struct
> udphdr) + mss and then in another you are cancelling it out as mss and
> trying to account for it by also dropping the UDP header from the
> payload length of the value you are adding. That works in the cases
> where the effect doesn't cause any issues with the byte ordering,
> however I think when mss + 8 crosses a byte boundary it can lead to
> issues since the calculation is done on a byte swapped value.

Do you mean that the issue is that the arithmetic operations
on a __be16 in csum_replace2 may be incorrect if they exceed
the least significant byte?

csum_replace2 is used in many locations in the stack to adjust a network
byte order csum when the payload length changes (e.g., iph->tot_len in
inet_gro_complete).

Or am I missing something specific about the udphdr calculations?