netdev - Re: [PATCH net] sctp: fix the issue that pathmtu may be set lower than MINSEGMENT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180703014306.GC26991@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:43:06 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        syzkaller@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: fix the issue that pathmtu may be set lower
 than MINSEGMENT

On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 07:45:12AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:51:16PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > After commit b6c5734db070 ("sctp: fix the handling of ICMP Frag Needed
> > for too small MTUs"), sctp_transport_update_pmtu would refetch pathmtu
> > from the dst and set it to transport's pathmtu without any check.
> > 
> > The new pathmtu may be lower than MINSEGMENT if the dst is obsolete and
> > updated by .get_dst() in sctp_transport_update_pmtu.

In this case, it could have a smaller MTU as well, and thus we should
validate it against MINSEGMENT instead.

> > 
> > Syzbot reported a warning in sctp_mtu_payload caused by this.
> > 
> > This fix uses the refetched pathmtu only when it's greater than the
> > frag_needed pmtu.
> > 
> > Fixes: b6c5734db070 ("sctp: fix the handling of ICMP Frag Needed for too small MTUs")
> > Reported-by: syzbot+f0d9d7cba052f9344b03@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  net/sctp/transport.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/sctp/transport.c b/net/sctp/transport.c
> > index 445b7ef..ddfb687 100644
> > --- a/net/sctp/transport.c
> > +++ b/net/sctp/transport.c
> > @@ -282,7 +282,10 @@ bool sctp_transport_update_pmtu(struct sctp_transport *t, u32 pmtu)
> >  
> >  	if (dst) {
> >  		/* Re-fetch, as under layers may have a higher minimum size */
> > -		pmtu = SCTP_TRUNC4(dst_mtu(dst));
> > +		u32 mtu = SCTP_TRUNC4(dst_mtu(dst));
> > +
> > +		if (pmtu < mtu)
> > +			pmtu = mtu;
> nit, but why not u32 mtu = min(pmtu, SCTP_TRUNC4(dst_mtu(dst))) here ?

sctp_dst_mtu() is wrapping all that for us :)

-		pmtu = SCTP_TRUNC4(dst_mtu(dst));
+		pmtu = sctp_dst_mtu(dst);

> 
> Neil
> 
> >  		change = t->pathmtu != pmtu;
> >  	}
> >  	t->pathmtu = pmtu;
> > -- 
> > 2.1.0
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>