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  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, 14 Mar 2019 07:56:10 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jianlin Shi <jishi@...hat.com>,
        Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: enforce xmit_recursion for devices with a queue



On 03/14/2019 07:15 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2019-03-14, 05:58:03 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/14/2019 03:15 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>>> Commit 745e20f1b626 ("net: add a recursion limit in xmit path")
>>> introduced a recursion limit, but it only applies to devices without a
>>> queue. Virtual devices with a queue (either because they don't have
>>> the IFF_NO_QUEUE flag, or because the administrator added one) can
>>> still cause an unbounded recursion, via __dev_queue_xmit ->
>>> __dev_xmit_skb -> qdisc_run -> __qdisc_run -> qdisc_restart ->
>>> sch_direct_xmit -> dev_hard_start_xmit . Jianlin reported this in a
>>> setup with 16 gretap devices stacked on top of one another.
>>>
>>> This patch prevents the stack overflow by incrementing xmit_recursion in
>>> code paths that can call dev_hard_start_xmit() (like commit 745e20f1b626
>>> did). If the recursion limit is exceeded, the packet is enqueued and the
>>> qdisc is scheduled.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Jianlin Shi <jishi@...hat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
>>> Reviewed-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
>>
>> Hi Sabrina, thanks for the patch.
>>
>> Can't we detect this in the control path instead ?
> 
> I don't see how. You could have a perfectly reasonable set of gretap
> devices that trigger this situation from simply reshuffling the IP
> addresses:
> 
> gretap$x remote 1.1.$((x-1)).{1,2}
> (all those addresses set on a single veth device)
> 
> Then you move those addresses to the corresponding device
> (1.1.${x}.{1,2} on gretap$x), and your machine crashes.
> 

If this only can be done with gretap, why gretap cant implement the protection,
outside of the fast path ?

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists