netdev - Re: [net] net/tls: Fix to avoid gettig invalid tls record

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: <6a47e7aa-c98a-ede5-f0d6-ce2bdc4875e8@chelsio.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:25:36 +0530
From:   rohit maheshwari <rohitm@...lsio.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net] net/tls: Fix to avoid gettig invalid tls record


On 13/02/20 9:39 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 12:46:30 +0530, Rohit Maheshwari wrote:
>> Current code doesn't check if tcp sequence number is starting from (/after)
>> 1st record's start sequnce number. It only checks if seq number is before
>> 1st record's end sequnce number. This problem will always be a possibility
>> in re-transmit case. If a record which belongs to a requested seq number is
>> already deleted, tls_get_record will start looking into list and as per the
>> check it will look if seq number is before the end seq of 1st record, which
>> will always be true and will return 1st record always, it should in fact
>> return NULL.
> I think I see your point, do you observe this problem in practice
> or did you find this through code review?
I am seeing this issue while running stress test.
>> diff --git a/net/tls/tls_device.c b/net/tls/tls_device.c
>> index cd91ad812291..2898517298bf 100644
>> --- a/net/tls/tls_device.c
>> +++ b/net/tls/tls_device.c
>> @@ -602,7 +602,8 @@ struct tls_record_info *tls_get_record(struct tls_offload_context_tx *context,
>>   		 */
>>   		info = list_first_entry_or_null(&context->records_list,
>>   						struct tls_record_info, list);
>> -		if (!info)
>> +		/* return NULL if seq number even before the 1st entry. */
>> +		if (!info || before(seq, info->end_seq - info->len))
> Is it not more appropriate to use between() in the actual comparison
> below? I feel like with this patch we can get false negatives.

If we use between(), though record doesn't exist, we still go and 
compare each record,

which I think, should actually be avoided.

>>   			return NULL;
>>   		record_sn = context->unacked_record_sn;
>>   	}
> If you post a v2 please add a Fixes tag and CC maintainers of this code.