netdev - Re: [PATCH net] udp: fix l4 hash after reconnect

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: <d638ce16-3f3a-44dd-bcb0-983fc1ef2f66@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 18:45:03 +0800
From: Philo Lu <lulie@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Fred Chen <fred.cc@...baba-inc.com>,
 Cambda Zhu <cambda@...ux.alibaba.com>, Willem de Bruijn
 <willemb@...gle.com>, Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] udp: fix l4 hash after reconnect

On 2024/12/10 16:32, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 12/7/24 03:34, Philo Lu wrote:
>> On 2024/12/7 00:23, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> On 12/6/24 17:01, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>> BTW, it seems that udp_lib_rehash() does the udp_rehash4()
>>>> only if the hash2 has changed.
>>>
>>> Oh, you are right, that requires a separate fix.
>>>
>>> @Philo: could you please have a look at that? basically you need to
>>> check separately for hash2 and hash4 changes.
>>
>> This is a good question. IIUC, the only affected case is when trying to
>> re-connect another remote address with the same local address
> 
> AFAICS, there is also another case: when re-connection using a different
> local addresses with the same l2 hash...
> 

Yes, you're right. I missed this case... Thank you for pointing out it.

>> (i.e.,
>> hash2 unchanged). And this will be handled by udp_lib_hash4(). So in
>> udp_lib_rehash() I put rehash4() inside hash2 checking, which means a
>> passive rehash4 following rehash2.
> 
> ... but even the latter case should be covered from the above.
> 
>> So I think it's more about the convention for rehash. We can choose the
>> better one.
> 
> IIRC a related question raised during code review for the udp L4 hash
> patches. Perhaps refactoring the code slightly to let udp_rehash()
> really doing the re-hashing and udp_hash really doing only the hashing
> could be worth.

Agreed. I'd appreciate it if someone helps to refactor it, or I can do 
this later myself.

-- 
Philo