netdev - [PATCH v5 net-next 3/3] ipv6: avoid atomic fragment on GSO packets

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: <90912e3503a242dca0bc36958b11ed03a2696e5e.1698156966.git.yan@cloudflare.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 07:26:40 -0700
From: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...udflare.com,
	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
	Alexander H Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 net-next 3/3] ipv6: avoid atomic fragment on GSO packets

When the ipv6 stack output a GSO packet, if its gso_size is larger than
dst MTU, then all segments would be fragmented. However, it is possible
for a GSO packet to have a trailing segment with smaller actual size
than both gso_size as well as the MTU, which leads to an "atomic
fragment". Atomic fragments are considered harmful in RFC-8021. An
Existing report from APNIC also shows that atomic fragments are more
likely to be dropped even it is equivalent to a no-op [1].

Add an extra check in the GSO slow output path. For each segment from
the original over-sized packet, if it fits with the path MTU, then avoid
generating an atomic fragment.

Link: https://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2022-03-01-ipv6-frag.pdf [1]
Fixes: b210de4f8c97 ("net: ipv6: Validate GSO SKB before finish IPv6 processing")
Reported-by: David Wragg <dwragg@...udflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>
---
 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
index 4010dd97aaf8..a722a43dd668 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
@@ -164,7 +164,13 @@ ip6_finish_output_gso_slowpath_drop(struct net *net, struct sock *sk,
 		int err;
 
 		skb_mark_not_on_list(segs);
-		err = ip6_fragment(net, sk, segs, ip6_finish_output2);
+		/* Last GSO segment can be smaller than gso_size (and MTU).
+		 * Adding a fragment header would produce an "atomic fragment",
+		 * which is considered harmful (RFC-8021). Avoid that.
+		 */
+		err = segs->len > mtu ?
+			ip6_fragment(net, sk, segs, ip6_finish_output2) :
+			ip6_finish_output2(net, sk, segs);
 		if (err && ret == 0)
 			ret = err;
 	}
-- 
2.30.2