[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ece21940-90fc-2bf7-19da-770cf0956542@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 00:18:02 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
Arthur Fabre <afabre@...udflare.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v4] bpf: Support dual-stack sockets in
bpf_tcp_check_syncookie
Hey Maxim,
On 3/29/22 3:30 PM, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> bpf_tcp_gen_syncookie looks at the IP version in the IP header and
> validates the address family of the socket. It supports IPv4 packets in
> AF_INET6 dual-stack sockets.
>
> On the other hand, bpf_tcp_check_syncookie looks only at the address
> family of the socket, ignoring the real IP version in headers, and
> validates only the packet size. This implementation has some drawbacks:
>
> 1. Packets are not validated properly, allowing a BPF program to trick
> bpf_tcp_check_syncookie into handling an IPv6 packet on an IPv4
> socket.
>
> 2. Dual-stack sockets fail the checks on IPv4 packets. IPv4 clients end
> up receiving a SYNACK with the cookie, but the following ACK gets
> dropped.
>
> This patch fixes these issues by changing the checks in
> bpf_tcp_check_syncookie to match the ones in bpf_tcp_gen_syncookie. IP
> version from the header is taken into account, and it is validated
> properly with address family.
>
> Fixes: 399040847084 ("bpf: add helper to check for a valid SYN cookie")
> Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Could you do one final spin (while retaining Arthur's Ack) by splitting
off the selftest into a separate commit? Otherwise stable folks likely
won't be able to pick the fix up. Otherwise lgtm.
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists