netdev - Re: [PATCH stable 4.4 0/9] fix SegmentSmack in stable branch (CVE-2018-5390)

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:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:42:32 +0800
From:   maowenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
CC:     <dwmw2@...radead.org>, <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <ycheng@...gle.com>,
        <jdw@...zon.de>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 4.4 0/9] fix SegmentSmack in stable branch
 (CVE-2018-5390)



On 2018/8/16 14:16, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:50:01AM +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
>> I have tested with stable 4.4 kernel, and found the cpu usage was very high.
>> So I think only two patches can't fix the CVE-2018-5390.
>> test results:
>> with fix patch：     78.2%   ksoftirqd
>> withoutfix patch：   90%     ksoftirqd
>>
>> Then I try to imitate 72cd43ba(tcp: free batches of packets in tcp_prune_ofo_queue())
>> to drop at least 12.5 % of sk_rcvbuf to avoid malicious attacks with simple queue 
>> instead of RB tree. The result is not very well.
>>  
>> After analysing the codes of stable 4.4, and debuging the 
>> system, shows that search of ofo_queue(tcp ofo using a simple queue) cost more cycles.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Stable 4.4 have already back port two patches, 
>> f4a3313d(tcp: avoid collapses in tcp_prune_queue() if possible)
>> 3d4bf93a(tcp: detect malicious patterns in tcp_collapse_ofo_queue())
>> If we want to change simple queue to RB tree to finally resolve, we should apply previous 
>> patch 9f5afeae(tcp: use an RB tree for ooo receive queue.) firstly, but 9f5afeae have many 
>> conflicts with 3d4bf93a and f4a3313d, which are part of patch series from Eric in 
>> mainline to fix CVE-2018-5390, so I need revert part of patches in stable 4.4 firstly, 
>> then apply 9f5afeae, and reapply five patches from Eric.
> 
> There seems to be an obvious mistake in one of the backports. Could you
> check the results with Takashi's follow-up fix submitted at
> 
>   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180815095846.7734-1-tiwai@suse.de
> 
> (I would try myself but you don't mention what test you ran.)

I have backport RB tree in stable 4.4, function tcp_collapse_ofo_queue() has been refined, which keep the
same with mainline, so it seems no problem when apply Eric's patch 3d4bf93a(tcp: detect malicious patterns in tcp_collapse_ofo_queue()).

I also noticed that range_truesize != head->truesize will be always false which mentioned in your URL, but this only based on stable 4.4's codes,
If I applied RB tree's patch 9f5afeae(tcp: use an RB tree for ooo receive queue), and after apply 3d4bf93a,the codes should be
range_truesize += skb->truesize, and range_truesize != head->truesize can be true.

One POC programm(named smack-for-ficora) is to send large out of order packets to existed tcp link, and check the cpu usage of the system with top command.

> 
> Michal Kubecek
> 
> .
>