netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: sched: protect against stack overflow in TC act

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]

Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:24:37 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>,
        Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com, shmulik@...anetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: sched: protect against stack overflow
 in TC act_mirred

On 2019-06-25 5:06 a.m., John Hurley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:30 AM Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure on the history of why a value of 4 was selected here but
> it seems to fall into line with my findings.

Back then we could only loop in one direction (as opposed to two right
now) - so seeing something twice would have been suspect enough,
so 4 seems to be a good number. I still think 4 is a good number.

> Is there a hard requirement for >4 recursive calls here?

I think this is where testcases help (which then get permanently
added in tdc repository). Eyal - if you have a test scenario where
this could be demonstrated it would help.

cheers,
jamal