netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] net: icmp: pass zeroed opts from icmp{,v6}_ndo

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: <CAHmME9rVuw5tAHUpnsXrLh-WAMXmvqSNFdOUh1XaKZ8bLOow9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Feb 2021 18:35:40 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        SinYu <liuxyon@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: icmp: pass zeroed opts from
 icmp{,v6}_ndo_send before sending

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:34 PM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> Thanks for respinning.
>
> Making ipv4 and ipv6 more aligned is a good goal, but more for
> net-next than bug fixes that need to be backported to many stable
> branches.
>
> Beyond that, I'm not sure this fixes additional cases vs the previous
> patch? It uses new on-stack variables instead of skb->cb, which again
> is probably good in general, but adds more change than is needed for
> the stable fix.

It doesn't appear to be problematic for applying to stable. I think
this v2 is the "right way" to handle it. Zeroing out skb->cb is
unexpected and weird anyway. What if the caller was expecting to use
their skb->cb after calling icmp_ndo_send? Did they think it'd get
wiped out like that? This v2 prevents that weird behavior from
happening.

> My comment on fixing all callers of  icmp{,v6}_send was wrong, in
> hindsight. In most cases IPCB is set correctly before calling those,
> so we cannot just zero inside those. If we can only address the case
> for icmp{,v6}_ndo_send I think the previous patch introduced less
> churn, so is preferable. Unless I'm missing something.

As mentioned above it's weird and unexpected.

> Reminder of two main comments: sufficient to zero sizeof(IPCB..) and
> if respinning, please explicitly mention the path that leads to a
> stack overflow, as it is not immediately obvious (even from reading
> the fix code?).

I don't intend to respin v1, as I think v2 is more correct, and I
don't think only zeroing IPCB is a smart idea, as in the future that
code is bound to break when somebody forgets to update it. This v2
does away with the zeroing all together, though, so that the right
bytes to be zeroed are properly enforced all the time by the type
system.

Jason