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]

Message-ID: <20180816113903.2stwrlm6frgmk2vs@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 13:39:03 +0200
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     maowenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
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 Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 03:55:16PM +0800, maowenan wrote:
> On 2018/8/16 15:44, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 03:39:14PM +0800, maowenan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2018/8/16 15:23, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 03:19:12PM +0800, maowenan wrote:
> >>>> On 2018/8/16 14:52, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point is that backporting all this into stable 4.4 is quite intrusive
> >>>>> so that if we can achieve similar results with a simple fix of an
> >>>>> obvious omission, it would be preferrable.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are five patches in mainline to fix this CVE, only two patches
> >>>> have no effect on stable 4.4, the important reason is 4.4 use simple
> >>>> queue but mainline use RB tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have tried my best to use easy way to fix this with dropping packets
> >>>> 12.5%(or other value) based on simple queue, but the result is not
> >>>> very well, so the RB tree is needed and tested result is my desire.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we only back port two patches but they don't fix the issue, I think
> >>>> they don't make any sense.
> >>>
> >>> There is an obvious omission in one of the two patches and Takashi's
> >>> patch fixes it. If his follow-up fix (applied on top of what is in
> >>> stable 4.4 now) addresses the problem, I would certainly prefer using it
> >>> over backporting the whole series.
> >>
> >> Do you mean below codes from Takashi can fix this CVE?
> >> But I have already tested like this two days ago, it is not good effect.
> > 
> > IIRC what you proposed was different, you proposed to replace the "=" in
> > the other branch by "+=".
> 
> No, I think you don't get what I mean, I have already tested stable 4.4,
> based on commit dc6ae4d, and change the codes like Takashi, which didn't
> contain any codes I have sent in this patch series.

I suspect you may be doing something wrong with your tests. I checked
the segmentsmack testcase and the CPU utilization on receiving side
(with sending 10 times as many packets as default) went down from ~100%
to ~3% even when comparing what is in stable 4.4 now against older 4.4
kernel.

This is actually not surprising. the testcase only sends 1-byte segments
starting at even offsets so that receiver never gets two adjacent
segments and the "range_truesize != head->truesize" condition would
never be satisfied, whether you fix the backport or not.

Where the missing "range_truesize += skb->truesize" makes a difference
is in the case when there are some adjacent out of order segments, e.g.
if you omitted 1:10 and then sent 10:11, 11:12, 12:13, 13:14, ...
Then the missing update of range_truesize would prevent collapsing the
queue until the total length of the range would exceed the value of
SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(SK_MEM_QUANTUM) (i.e. a bit less than 4 KB).

Michal Kubecek