netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] tcp: conditionally call ip_icmp_error() from tcp_v4

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: <CAL+tcoB0SzgtG-3mAYrG6ROGbK2HwqXCTo21-0FxfOzKQc397A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:22:58 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>, eric.dumazet@...il.com, 
	Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Shachar Kagan <skagan@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] tcp: conditionally call ip_icmp_error() from tcp_v4_err()

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:59 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Blamed commit claimed in its changelog that the new functionality
> was guarded by IP_RECVERR/IPV6_RECVERR :
>
>     Note that applications need to set IP_RECVERR/IPV6_RECVERR option to
>     enable this feature, and that the error message is only queued
>     while in SYN_SNT state.
>
> This was true only for IPv6, because ipv6_icmp_error() has
> the following check:
>
> if (!inet6_test_bit(RECVERR6, sk))
>     return;
>
> Other callers check IP_RECVERR by themselves, it is unclear
> if we could factorize these checks in ip_icmp_error()
>
> For stable backports, I chose to add the missing check in tcp_v4_err()
>
> We think this missing check was the root cause for commit
> 0a8de364ff7a ("tcp: no longer abort SYN_SENT when receiving
> some ICMP") breakage, leading to a revert.
>
> Many thanks to Dragos Tatulea for conducting the investigations.
>
> As Jakub said :
>
>     The suspicion is that SSH sees the ICMP report on the socket error queue
>     and tries to connect() again, but due to the patch the socket isn't
>     disconnected, so it gets EALREADY, and throws its hands up...
>
>     The error bubbles up to Vagrant which also becomes unhappy.
>
>     Can we skip the call to ip_icmp_error() for non-fatal ICMP errors?
>
> Fixes: 45af29ca761c ("tcp: allow traceroute -Mtcp for unpriv users")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Tested-by: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
> Cc: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
> Cc: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
> Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
> Cc: Shachar Kagan <skagan@...dia.com>

Reviewed-by: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>

I wonder if we're supposed to move this check into ip_icmp_error()
like ipv6_icmp_error() does, because I notice one caller
rxrpc_encap_err_rcv() without checking RECVERR  bit reuses the ICMP
error logic which is introduced in commit b6c66c4324e7 ("rxrpc: Use
the core ICMP/ICMP6 parsers'')?

Or should it be a follow-up patch (moving it inside of
ip_icmp_error()) to handle the rxrpc case and also prevent future
misuse for other people?

Thanks,
Jason