netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: gso: Fix skb_segment splat when splitting gso_size mangled skb having linear-headed frag

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

Date:   Fri, 6 Sep 2019 10:49:55 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik@...anetworks.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, eyal@...anetworks.com,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: gso: Fix skb_segment splat when splitting
 gso_size mangled skb having linear-headed frag_list

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:47 AM Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik@...anetworks.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:51:20 -0400
> Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:36 PM Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik@...anetworks.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +       if (mss != GSO_BY_FRAGS &&
> > > +           (skb_shinfo(head_skb)->gso_type & SKB_GSO_DODGY)) {
> > > +               /* gso_size is untrusted.
> > > +                *
> > > +                * If head_skb has a frag_list with a linear non head_frag
> > > +                * item, and head_skb's headlen does not fit requested
> > > +                * gso_size, fall back to copying the skbs - by disabling sg.
> > > +                *
> > > +                * We assume checking the first frag suffices, i.e if either of
> > > +                * the frags have non head_frag data, then the first frag is
> > > +                * too.
> > > +                */
> > > +               if (list_skb && skb_headlen(list_skb) && !list_skb->head_frag &&
> > > +                   (mss != skb_headlen(head_skb) - doffset)) {
> >
> > I thought the idea was to check skb_headlen(list_skb), as that is the
> > cause of the problem. Is skb_headlen(head_skb) a good predictor of
> > that? I can certainly imagine that it is, just not sure.
>
> Yes, 'mss != skb_headlen(HEAD_SKB)' seems to be a very good predictor,
> both for the test reproducer, and what's observered on a live system.
>
> We *CANNOT* use 'mss != skb_headlen(LIST_SKB)' as the test condition.
> The packet could have just a SINGLE frag_list member, and that member could
> be a "small remainder" not reaching the full mss size - so we could hit
> the test condition EVEN FOR NON gso_size mangled frag_list skbs -
> which is not desired.

The last segment. Yes, good point.

> Also, is we test 'mss != skb_headlen(list_skb)' and execute 'sg=false'
> ONLY IF 'list_skb' is *NOT* the last item, this is still bogus.
> Imagine a gso_size mangled packet having just head_skb and a single
> "small remainder" frag. This packet will hit the BUG_ON, as the
> 'sg=false' solution is now skipped according to the revised condition.

Right, I wouldn't suggest that.

But I wonder whether it is a given that head_skb has headlen.

Btw, it seems slightly odd to me tot test head_frag before testing
headlen in the v2 patch.