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: <20200318112539.6b595142@carbon>
Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:25:39 +0100
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     sameehj@...zon.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        zorik@...zon.com, akiyano@...zon.com, gtzalik@...zon.com,
        Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 09/15] xdp: clear grow memory in
 bpf_xdp_adjust_tail()

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:15:38 +0100
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:

> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> writes:
> 
> > To reviewers: Need some opinions if this is needed?
> >
> > (TODO: Squash patch)
> > ---
> >  net/core/filter.c |    6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> > index 0ceddee0c678..669f29992177 100644
> > --- a/net/core/filter.c
> > +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> > @@ -3432,6 +3432,12 @@ BPF_CALL_2(bpf_xdp_adjust_tail, struct xdp_buff *, xdp, int, offset)
> >  	if (unlikely(data_end < xdp->data + ETH_HLEN))
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > +	// XXX: To reviewers: How paranoid are we? Do we really need to
> > +	/* clear memory area on grow, as in-theory can contain uninit kmem */
> > +	if (offset > 0) {
> > +		memset(xdp->data_end, 0, offset);
> > +	}  
> 
> This memory will usually be recycled through page_pool or equivalent,
> right? So couldn't we clear the pages when they are first allocated?
> That way, the only data that would be left there would be packet data
> from previous packets...

Yes, that is another option, to clear pages on "real" alloc (not
recycle alloc), but it is a bit harder to implement (when not using
page_pool).

And yes, this area will very likely just contain old packet data, but
we cannot be 100% sure.

Previously Alexei have argued that we should not leak pointer values in
XDP.  Which is why we have xdp_scrub_frame(), but this is not 100% the
same.  So, I would like to hear Alexei's opinion ?

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ