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: <20180913123238.GI2268@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:32:38 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     maowenan <maowenan@...wei.com>, dwmw2@...radead.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 05:24:09PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 02:33:56PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 08:05:50PM +0800, maowenan wrote:
> > > On 2018/8/16 19:39, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > There seems no obvious problem when you send packets with default
> > > parameter in Segmentsmack POC, Which is also very related with your
> > > server's hardware configuration. Please try with below parameter to
> > > form OFO packets
> > 
> > I did and even with these (questionable, see below) changes, I did not
> > get more than 10% (of one core) by receiving ksoftirqd.
> > 
> > >       for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++)      // 128->1024
> > ...
> > >       usleep(10*1000); // Adjust this and packet count to match the target!, sleep 100ms->10ms
> > 
> > The comment in the testcase source suggests to do _one_ of these two
> > changes so that you generate 10 times as many packets as the original
> > testcase. You did both so that you end up sending 102400 packets per
> > second. With 55 byte long packets, this kind of attack requires at least
> > 5.5 MB/s (44 Mb/s) of throughput. This is no longer a "low packet rate
> > DoS", I'm afraid.
> > 
> > Anyway, even at this rate, I only get ~10% of one core (Intel E5-2697).
> > 
> > What I can see, though, is that with current stable 4.4 code, modified
> > testcase which sends something like
> > 
> >   2:3, 3:4, ..., 3001:3002, 3003:3004, 3004:3005, ... 6001:6002, ...
> > 
> > I quickly eat 6 MB of memory for receive queue of one socket while
> > earlier 4.4 kernels only take 200-300 KB. I didn't test latest 4.4 with
> > Takashi's follow-up yet but I'm pretty sure it will help while
> > preserving nice performance when using the original segmentsmack
> > testcase (with increased packet ratio).
> 
> Ok, for now I've applied Takashi's fix to the 4.4 stable queue and will
> push out a new 4.4-rc later tonight.  Can everyone standardize on that
> and test and let me know if it does, or does not, fix the reported
> issues?
> 
> If not, we can go from there and evaluate this much larger patch series.
> But let's try the simple thing first.

So, is the issue still present on the latest 4.4 release?  Has anyone
tested it?  If not, I'm more than willing to look at backported patches,
but I want to ensure that they really are needed here.

thanks,

greg k-h