netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net 3/4] wireguard: send: account for mtu=0 devices

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: <93b32ed6-4660-47ad-922f-b3b618ece8ea@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:21:18 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net 3/4] wireguard: send: account for mtu=0 devices



On 2/14/20 2:57 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> It turns out there's an easy way to get packets queued up while still
> having an MTU of zero, and that's via persistent keep alive. This commit
> makes sure that in whatever condition, we don't wind up dividing by
> zero. Note that an MTU of zero for a wireguard interface is something
> quasi-valid, so I don't think the correct fix is to limit it via
> min_mtu. This can be reproduced easily with:
> 
> ip link add wg0 type wireguard
> ip link add wg1 type wireguard
> ip link set wg0 up mtu 0
> ip link set wg1 up
> wg set wg0 private-key <(wg genkey)
> wg set wg1 listen-port 1 private-key <(wg genkey) peer $(wg show wg0 public-key)
> wg set wg0 peer $(wg show wg1 public-key) persistent-keepalive 1 endpoint 127.0.0.1:1
> 
> However, while min_mtu=0 seems fine, it makes sense to restrict the
> max_mtu. This commit also restricts the maximum MTU to the greatest
> number for which rounding up to the padding multiple won't overflow a
> signed integer. Packets this large were always rejected anyway
> eventually, due to checks deeper in, but it seems more sound not to even
> let the administrator configure something that won't work anyway.
> 
> We use this opportunity to clean up this function a bit so that it's
> clear which paths we're expecting.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>

Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>

Thanks !