netdev - Re: SECURITY PROBLEM: Any user can crash the kernel with TCP ZEROCOPY

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: <CANn89iJDNdOpb6L6PkrAcbGcsx6_v4VD0v2XFY77g7tEnJEXXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:39:04 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: "zhangpeng (AS)" <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, 
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, arjunroy@...gle.com, 
	wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: SECURITY PROBLEM: Any user can crash the kernel with TCP ZEROCOPY

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:12 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 05:30:18PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:04 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > I'm disappointed to have no reaction from netdev so far.  Let's see if a
> > > more exciting subject line evinces some interest.
> >
> > Hmm, perhaps some of us were enjoying their weekend ?
>
> I am all in favour of people taking time off!  However the report came
> in on Friday at 9am UTC so it had been more than a work day for anyone
> anywhere in the world without response.
>
> > I don't really know what changed recently, all I know is that TCP zero
> > copy is for real network traffic.
> >
> > Real trafic uses order-0 pages, 4K at a time.
> >
> > If can_map_frag() needs to add another safety check, let's add it.
>
> So it's your opinion that people don't actually use sendfile() from
> a local file, and we can make this fail to zerocopy?

Certainly we do not do that at Google.
I am not sure if anybody else would have used this.



 That's good
> because I had a slew of questions about what expectations we had around
> cache coherency between pages mapped this way and write()/mmap() of
> the original file.  If we can just disallow this, we don't need to
> have a discussion about it.
>
> > syzbot is usually quite good at bisections, was a bug origin found ?
>
> I have the impression that Huawei run syzkaller themselves without
> syzbot.  I suspect this bug has been there for a good long time.
> Wonder why nobody's found it before; it doesn't seem complicated for a
> fuzzer to stumble into.

I is strange syzbot (The Google fuzzer) have not found this yet, I
suspect it might be caused
by a recent change somewhere ?

A repro would definitely help, I could start a bisection.