netdev - Re: [bpf PATCH 3/3] bpf: test_maps, only support ESTABLISHED socks

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: <CAH3MdRUrTBB=bDW6T3Nh9-3QaGm7ciyoEwB2G3SMw_QnJvr_MA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 14:21:41 -0700
From:   Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     edumazet@...gle.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [bpf PATCH 3/3] bpf: test_maps, only support ESTABLISHED socks

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:33 AM John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Ensure that sockets added to a sock{map|hash} that is not in the
> ESTABLISHED state is rejected.
>
> Fixes: 1aa12bdf1bfb ("bpf: sockmap, add sock close() hook to remove socks")
> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c |   10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
> index 6f54f84..0f2090f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
> @@ -580,7 +580,11 @@ static void test_sockmap(int tasks, void *data)
>         /* Test update without programs */
>         for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
>                 err = bpf_map_update_elem(fd, &i, &sfd[i], BPF_ANY);
> -               if (err) {
> +               if (i < 2 && !err) {
> +                       printf("Allowed update sockmap '%i:%i' not in ESTABLISHED\n",
> +                              i, sfd[i]);
> +                       goto out_sockmap;
> +               } else if (i > 1 && err) {

Just a nit. Maybe "i >= 2" since it will be more clear since it is
opposite of "i < 2"?

>                         printf("Failed noprog update sockmap '%i:%i'\n",
>                                i, sfd[i]);
>                         goto out_sockmap;
> @@ -741,7 +745,7 @@ static void test_sockmap(int tasks, void *data)
>         }
>
>         /* Test map update elem afterwards fd lives in fd and map_fd */
> -       for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
> +       for (i = 2; i < 6; i++) {
>                 err = bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd_rx, &i, &sfd[i], BPF_ANY);
>                 if (err) {
>                         printf("Failed map_fd_rx update sockmap %i '%i:%i'\n",
> @@ -845,7 +849,7 @@ static void test_sockmap(int tasks, void *data)
>         }
>
>         /* Delete the elems without programs */
> -       for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
> +       for (i = 2; i < 6; i++) {
>                 err = bpf_map_delete_elem(fd, &i);
>                 if (err) {
>                         printf("Failed delete sockmap %i '%i:%i'\n",
>