netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: add parameter to ignore nvm checksum validation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 May 2019 11:09:36 -0700
From:   Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "Nikunj Kela (nkela)" <nkela@...co.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "xe-linux-external(mailer list)" <xe-linux-external@...co.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: add parameter to ignore nvm
 checksum validation

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 09:58:46AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > I don't think you can say because the checksum is valid that all data contained
> > inside is also valid. You can have a valid checksum , and someone screwed up the
> > data prior to the checksum getting computed.
> 
> If someone screwed up the data prior to writing the checksum then that
> is on them. In theory we could also have a multi-bit error that could
> similarly be missed. However if the checksum is not valid then the
> data contained in the NVM does not match what was originally written,
> so we know we have bad data. Why should we act on the data if we know
> it is bad?
 
It's hypothetical , but it's likely someone has screwed up the data prior to the
checksum getting computed.

> > > We need to make the checksum a hard stop. If the part is broken then
> > > it needs to be addressed. Workarounds just end up being used and
> > > forgotten, which makes it that much harder to support the product.
> > > Better to mark the part as being broken, and get it fixed now, than to
> > > have parts start shipping that require workarounds in order to
> > > function.o
> >
> > I don't think it's realistic to define the development process for large
> > corporations like Cisco, or like what your doing , to define the development
> > process for all corporations and products which may use intel parts. It's better
> > to be flexible.
> >
> > Daniel
> 
> This isn't about development. If you are doing development you can do
> whatever you want with your own downstream driver. What you are
> attempting to do is update the upstream driver which is used in
> production environments.
 
Cisco has this issue in development, and in production. So your right, it's not
about development in isolation. People make mistakes..

> What concerns me is when this module parameter gets used in a
> development environment and then slips into being required for a
> production environment. At that point it defeats the whole point of
> the checksum in the first place.

I agree .. Ultimately it's the choice of the OEM, if it gets into production
then it's their product and they support the product. As I was saying in a prior
email it should be a priority of the driver to give flexibility for mistakes
people will inevitably make.

Daniel