netdev - Re: UDP implementation and the MSG

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: <CA+FuTSd_=nL7sycEYKSUbGVoC56V3Wyc=zLMo+mQ9mjC4i8_gw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:00:07 -0500
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     oliver.graute@...il.com
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: UDP implementation and the MSG_MORE flag

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:54 PM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:58 AM Oliver Graute <oliver.graute@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > we observe some unexpected behavior in the UDP implementation of the
> > linux kernel.
> >
> > Some UDP packets send via the loopback interface are dropped in the
> > kernel on the receive side when using sendto with the MSG_MORE flag.
> > Every drop increases the InCsumErrors in /proc/self/net/snmp. Some
> > example code to reproduce it is appended below.
> >
> > In the code we tracked it down to this code section. ( Even a little
> > further but its unclear to me wy the csum() is wrong in the bad case)
> >
> > udpv6_recvmsg()
> > ...
> > if (checksum_valid || udp_skb_csum_unnecessary(skb)) {
> >                 if (udp_skb_is_linear(skb))
> >                         err = copy_linear_skb(skb, copied, off, &msg->msg_iter);
> >                 else
> >                         err = skb_copy_datagram_msg(skb, off, msg, copied);
> >         } else {
> >                 err = skb_copy_and_csum_datagram_msg(skb, off, msg);
> >                 if (err == -EINVAL) {
> >                         goto csum_copy_err;
> >                 }
> >         }
> > ...
> >
>
> Thanks for the report with a full reproducer.
>
> I don't have a full answer yet, but can reproduce this easily.
>
> The third program, without MSG_MORE, builds an skb with
> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL in __ip_append_data. When looped to the receive path
> that ip_summed means no additional validation is needed. As encoded in
> skb_csum_unnecessary.
>
> The first and second programs are essentially the same, bar for a
> slight difference in length. In both cases packet length is very short
> compared to the loopback device MTU. Because of MSG_MORE, these
> packets have CHECKSUM_NONE.
>
> On receive in
>
>   __udp4_lib_rcv()
>     udp4_csum_init()
>       err = skb_checksum_init_zero_check()
>
> The second program validates and sets ip_summed = CHECKSUM_COMPLETE
> and csum_valid = 1.
> The first does not, though err == 0.
>
> This appears to succeed consistently for packets <= 68B of payload,
> fail consistently otherwise. It is not clear to me yet what causes
> this distinction.

This is from

"
/* For small packets <= CHECKSUM_BREAK perform checksum complete directly
 * in checksum_init.
 */
#define CHECKSUM_BREAK 76
"

So the small packet gets checksummed immediately in
__skb_checksum_validate_complete, but the larger one does not.

Question is why the copy_and_checksum you pointed to seems to fail checksum.