[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180815132432.GE31330@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:24:32 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net,
ycheng@...gle.com, jdw@...zon.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 4.4 0/9] fix SegmentSmack (CVE-2018-5390)
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 09:20:59PM +0800, Mao Wenan wrote:
> There are five patches to fix CVE-2018-5390 in latest mainline
> branch, but only two patches exist in stable 4.4 and 3.18:
> dc6ae4d tcp: detect malicious patterns in tcp_collapse_ofo_queue()
> 5fbec48 tcp: avoid collapses in tcp_prune_queue() if possible
> but I have tested with these patches, and found the cpu usage was very high.
> test results:
> with fix patch: 78.2% ksoftirqd
> no fix patch: 90% ksoftirqd
>
> After analysing the codes of stable 4.4, and debuging the
> system, the search of ofo_queue(tcp ofo using a simple queue) cost more cycles.
> So I think only two patches can't fix the CVE-2018-5390.
> So I try to backport "tcp: use an RB tree for ooo receive queue" using RB tree
> instead of simple queue, then backport Eric Dumazet 5 fixed patches in mainline,
> good news is that ksoftirqd is turn to about 20%, which is the same with mainline now.
Thanks for doing this work, I had some questions on the individual
patches. Can you address them and resend?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists