netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ip6_tunnel: set inner ipproto before ip6_tnl

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]

Date:   Thu, 29 Oct 2020 15:50:17 +0000
From:   Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Alexander Ovechkin <ovov@...dex-team.ru>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ip6_tunnel: set inner ipproto before ip6_tnl_encap.



On 29.10.2020 14:40, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 3:46 AM Alexander Ovechkin <ovov@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
>> On 28 Oct 2020, at 01:53 UTC Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexander Ovechkin <ovov@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
>>>>> But it was moved on purpose to avoid setting the inner protocol to IPPROTO_MPLS. That needs to use skb->inner_protocol to further segment.
>>>> And why do we need to avoid setting the inner protocol to IPPROTO_MPLS? Currently skb->inner_protocol is used before call of ip6_tnl_xmit.
>>>> Can you please give example when this patch breaks MPLS segmentation?
>>> mpls_gso_segment calls skb_mac_gso_segment on the inner packet. After
>>> setting skb->protocol based on skb->inner_protocol.
>> Yeah, but mpls_gso_segment is called before ip6_tnl_xmit (because tun devices don't have NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE in their mpls_features), so it does not matter to what value ip6_tnl_xmit sets skb->inner_ipproto.
>> And even if gso would been called after both mpls_xmit and ip6_tnl_xmit it would fail as you have written.
> Good point. Okay, if no mpls gso packets can make it here, then it
> should not matter.
>
> Vadim, are we missing another reason for this move?
>
> Else, no other concerns from me. Please do add a Fixes tag.
I need a bit of time to repeat all the tests I've done earlier. Will be back 
soon with the results.