netdev - Re: [bpf PATCH v2 2/6] bpf: tls fix transition through disconnect with close

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:58:46 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        edumazet@...gle.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf PATCH v2 2/6] bpf: tls fix transition through disconnect
 with close

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:25:54 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:47:16 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:  
> > > > Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:34:17 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:    
> > > > > > > > > +		if (sk->sk_prot->unhash)
> > > > > > > > > +			sk->sk_prot->unhash(sk);
> > > > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +	ctx = tls_get_ctx(sk);
> > > > > > > > > +	if (ctx->tx_conf == TLS_SW || ctx->rx_conf == TLS_SW)
> > > > > > > > > +		tls_sk_proto_cleanup(sk, ctx, timeo);    
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do we still need to hook into unhash? With patch 6 in place perhaps we
> > > > > can just do disconnect 🥺    
> > > > 
> > > > ?? "can just do a disconnect", not sure I folow. We still need unhash
> > > > in cases where we have a TLS socket transition from ESTABLISHED
> > > > to LISTEN state without calling close(). This is independent of if
> > > > sockmap is running or not.
> > > > 
> > > > Originally, I thought this would be extremely rare but I did see it
> > > > in real applications on the sockmap side so presumably it is possible
> > > > here as well.  
> > > 
> > > Ugh, sorry, I meant shutdown. Instead of replacing the unhash callback
> > > replace the shutdown callback. We probably shouldn't release the socket
> > > lock either there, but we can sleep, so I'll be able to run the device
> > > connection remove callback (which sleep).
> > 
> > ah OK seems doable to me. Do you want to write that on top of this
> > series? Or would you like to push it onto your branch and I can pull
> > it in push the rest of the patches on top and send it out? I think
> > if you can get to it in the next few days then it makes sense to wait.
> 
> Mm.. perhaps its easiest if we forget about HW for now and get SW 
> to work? Once you get the SW to 100% I can probably figure out what 
> to do for HW, but I feel like we got too many moving parts ATM.

Hi Jack,

I went ahead and pushed a v3 with your patches at the front. This resolves
a set of issues for me so I think it makes sense to push now and look
to resolve any further issues later. I'll look into the close with pending
data potential issue to see if it is/is-not a real issue.

Thanks,
John