netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: un-do: defrag: drop non-last frags smaller than min mtu

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: <CAB=W+o=2FY9abgDnOw+WHw+GwYPXH7xAy52B1z6ve4D4p1E82Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:29:27 -0600
From:   Captain Wiggum <captwiggum@...il.com>
To:     Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Peter Oskolkov <posk@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: un-do: defrag: drop non-last frags smaller than
 min mtu

Thank you Peter!

I tried the patch on 4.9.167 & 4.19.32. It's out of sync with upstream.
Looks like a little different work needed for each LTS kernel.
Is someone is familiar with it, and is available to patch it?
If not, I'd be happy to do this and propose a patch for at least 4.9,
4.14, 4.19.
I look forward to your feedback.
-----
patch against 4.9.167:
include/net/inet_frag.h: 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED
net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c: 4 out of 9 hunks FAILED
can't find file to patch at input line 796: Not found: include/net/ipv6_frag.h
-----
patch against 4.19.32:
net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c: 3 out of 9 hunks FAILED
net/ipv6/reassembly.c: 2 out of 8 hunks FAILED
can't find file to patch: tools/testing/selftests/net/ip_defrag.c

--John Masinter

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:59 AM Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:51 AM Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:49:52AM -0600, Captain Wiggum wrote:
> > >Hi Sasha,
> > >
> > >This patch cannot be applied to upstream, the code is significantly different.
> > >Therefore, this un-do patch would not be seen in the upstream git log.
> > >It was solved there by coding a better solution, not by the un-do patch.
> >
> > Okay, so this is effectively a request to diverge the -stable tree from
> > upstream in a non-trivial way, which is why I asked David Miller to ack
> > this act explcitly (or to send me patches, or whatever else he thinks is
> > appropriate here).
>
> I believe that applying this patch series:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1029418/
> from upstream will achieve the desired outcome (assuming it applies cleanly).
>
> >
> > >Please consider this:
> > >Upstream passes the TAHI IPv6 protocol tests. All the LTS kernels do NOT.
> > >This is the patch that causes the failure in 4.9, 4.14, 4.19 LTS kernels.
> >
> > I very much agree that this should get fixed. My concerns are not with
> > the bug but are with the proposed fix as it applies to -stable trees.
> >
> > >And this patch has been in place with 4.9.134, a long time.
> > >It is not right that "Linux" can not pass the IPv6 protocol test.
> > >My executive are asking me why "Linux" is not fit for IPv6 deployments.
> >
> > Arguments such as this carry no weight in a more technical discussion
> > such as this. Yes, some tests are currently broken, but we will not take
> > shortcuts just because "executives are unhappy".
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Sasha