netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/4] tcp: tcp_fragment() should apply sane memory limits

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: <B600B3AB-559E-44C1-869C-7309DB28850E@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:28:31 +0200
From:   Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     "Prout, Andrew - LLSC - MITLL" <aprout@...mit.edu>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Looney <jtl@...flix.com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
        Bruce Curtis <brucec@...flix.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Dustin Marquess <dmarquess@...le.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/4] tcp: tcp_fragment() should apply sane memory
 limits



> On Jul 10, 2019, at 9:26 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/10/19 8:53 PM, Prout, Andrew - LLSC - MITLL wrote:
>> 
>> Our initial rollout was v4.14.130, but I reproduced it with v4.14.132 as well, reliably for the samba test and once (not reliably) with synthetic test I was trying. A patched v4.14.132 with this patch partially reverted (just the four lines from tcp_fragment deleted) passed the samba test.
>> 
>> The synthetic test was a pair of simple send/recv test programs under the following conditions:
>> -The send socket was non-blocking
>> -SO_SNDBUF set to 128KiB
>> -The receiver NIC was being flooded with traffic from multiple hosts (to induce packet loss/retransmits)
>> -Load was on both systems: a while(1) program spinning on each CPU core
>> -The receiver was on an older unaffected kernel
>> 
> 
> SO_SNDBUF to 128KB does not permit to recover from heavy losses,
> since skbs needs to be allocated for retransmits.

Would it make sense to always allow the alloc in tcp_fragment when coming from __tcp_retransmit_skb() through the retransmit-timer ?

AFAICS, the crasher was when an attacker sends "fake" SACK-blocks. Thus, we would still be protected from too much fragmentation, but at least would always allow the retransmission to go out.


Christoph

> 
> The bug we fixed allowed remote attackers to crash all linux hosts,
> 
> I am afraid we have to enforce the real SO_SNDBUF limit, finally.
> 
> Even a cushion of 128KB per socket is dangerous, for servers with millions of TCP sockets.
> 
> You will either have to set SO_SNDBUF to higher values, or let autotuning in place.
> Or revert the patches and allow attackers hit you badly.
>