netdev - Re: [PATCH net 5/5] tls: don't decrypt the next record if it's of a different type

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: <ZPtACbUa9rQz0uFq@hog>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 17:38:49 +0200
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com>,
	Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 5/5] tls: don't decrypt the next record if it's of a
 different type

2023-09-08, 14:06:12 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 02:21:59PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> >
> > Herbert, WDYT? We're calling tls_do_decryption twice from the same
> > tls_sw_recvmsg invocation, first with darg->async = true, then with
> > darg->async = false. Is it ok to use ctx->async_wait for both, or do
> > we need a fresh one as in this patch?
> 
> Yes I think your patch makes sense and the existing code could
> malfunction if two decryption requests occur during the same
> tls_sw_recvmsg call, with the first being async and the second
> being sync.

Thanks for confirming. I'll add it to v2 of this series.

> However, I'm still unsure about the case where two async decryption
> requests occur during the same tls_sw_recvmsg call.  Or perhaps this
> is not possible due to other constraints that are not obvious?

tls_decrypt_done only runs the completion when decrypt_pending drops
to 0, so this should be covered.


I wonder if this situation could happen:

tls_sw_recvmsg
  process first record
    decrypt_pending = 1
                                  CB runs
                                  decrypt_pending = 0
                                  complete(&ctx->async_wait.completion);

  process second record
    decrypt_pending = 1
  tls_sw_recvmsg reaches "recv_end"
    decrypt_pending != 0
    crypto_wait_req sees the first completion of ctx->async_wait and proceeds

                                  CB runs
                                  decrypt_pending = 0
                                  complete(&ctx->async_wait.completion);


With my force_async patch I've managed to run into situations where
the CB runs before we reach the crypto_wait_req at the end of
tls_sw_recvmsg (patch 4 of this series [1]). I don't know if it's a
side-effect of my hack or if it's realistic.

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/e094325019f7fd960470c10efda41c1b7f9bc54f.1694018970.git.sd@queasysnail.net/

-- 
Sabrina