From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
pabeni@redhat.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, maze@google.com,
shiming.cheng@mediatek.com, daniel@iogearbox.net,
lena.wang@mediatek.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] gso: fix gso fraglist segmentation after pull from frag_list
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 03:45:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <66f5113434b43_802f9294d8@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53360620-839e-49d1-b9e4-6359e7588d81@nbd.name>
Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 26.09.24 09:19, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >> On 25.09.24 22:59, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >> > On 25.09.24 21:09, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >> >> Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >> >>> On 22.09.24 17:03, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >> >>> > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Detect gso fraglist skbs with corrupted geometry (see below) and
> >> >>> > pass these to skb_segment instead of skb_segment_list, as the first
> >> >>> > can segment them correctly.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Valid SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST skbs
> >> >>> > - consist of two or more segments
> >> >>> > - the head_skb holds the protocol headers plus first gso_size
> >> >>> > - one or more frag_list skbs hold exactly one segment
> >> >>> > - all but the last must be gso_size
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Optional datapath hooks such as NAT and BPF (bpf_skb_pull_data) can
> >> >>> > modify these skbs, breaking these invariants.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > In extreme cases they pull all data into skb linear. For UDP, this
> >> >>> > causes a NULL ptr deref in __udpv4_gso_segment_list_csum at
> >> >>> > udp_hdr(seg->next)->dest.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Detect invalid geometry due to pull, by checking head_skb size.
> >> >>> > Don't just drop, as this may blackhole a destination. Convert to be
> >> >>> > able to pass to regular skb_segment.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240428142913.18666-1-shiming.cheng@mediatek.com/
> >> >>> > Fixes: 3a1296a38d0c ("net: Support GRO/GSO fraglist chaining.")
> >> >>> > Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> >> >>> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > ---
> >> >>> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c b/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c
> >> >>> > index d842303587af..e457fa9143a6 100644
> >> >>> > --- a/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c
> >> >>> > +++ b/net/ipv4/udp_offload.c
> >> >>> > @@ -296,8 +296,16 @@ struct sk_buff *__udp_gso_segment(struct sk_buff *gso_skb,
> >> >>> > return NULL;
> >> >>> > }
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > - if (skb_shinfo(gso_skb)->gso_type & SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST)
> >> >>> > - return __udp_gso_segment_list(gso_skb, features, is_ipv6);
> >> >>> > + if (skb_shinfo(gso_skb)->gso_type & SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST) {
> >> >>> > + /* Detect modified geometry and pass these to skb_segment. */
> >> >>> > + if (skb_pagelen(gso_skb) - sizeof(*uh) == skb_shinfo(gso_skb)->gso_size)
> >> >>> > + return __udp_gso_segment_list(gso_skb, features, is_ipv6);
> >> >>> > +
> >> >>> > + /* Setup csum, as fraglist skips this in udp4_gro_receive. */
> >> >>> > + gso_skb->csum_start = skb_transport_header(gso_skb) - gso_skb->head;
> >> >>> > + gso_skb->csum_offset = offsetof(struct udphdr, check);
> >> >>> > + gso_skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_PARTIAL;
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I also noticed this uh->check update done by udp4_gro_complete only in
> >> >>> case of non-fraglist GRO:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> if (uh->check)
> >> >>> uh->check = ~udp_v4_check(skb->len - nhoff, iph->saddr,
> >> >>> iph->daddr, 0);
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I didn't see any equivalent in your patch. Is it missing or left out
> >> >>> intentionally?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks. That was not intentional. I think you're right. Am a bit
> >> >> concerned that all this testing did not catch it. Perhaps because
> >> >> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL looped to ingress on the same machine is simply
> >> >> interpreted as CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. Need to look into that.
> >> >>
> >> >> If respinning this, I should also change the Fixes to
> >> >>
> >> >> Fixes: 9fd1ff5d2ac7 ("udp: Support UDP fraglist GRO/GSO.")
> >> >>
> >> >> Analogous to the eventual TCP fix to
> >> >>
> >> >> Fixes: bee88cd5bd83 ("net: add support for segmenting TCP fraglist GSO packets")
> >> >
> >> > In the mean time, I've been working on the TCP side. I managed to
> >> > reproduce the issue on one of my devices by routing traffic from
> >> > Ethernet to Wifi using your BPF test program.
> >> >
> >> > The following patch makes it work for me for TCP v4. Still need to
> >> > test and fix v6.
> >>
> >> Actually, here is something even simpler that should work for both v4
> >> and v6:
> >
> > Makes sense. It does come with higher cost of calling skb_checksum.
>
> But only if there is no checksum offload, right? Because the way I
> implemented it, the lines further below starting with
> if (unlikely(skb->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_PARTIAL))
> will initialize th->check and set ip_summed to CHECKSUM_PARTIAL
> Or am I missing something?
Oh you're right, __tcp_v4_send_check then does this, so no need to
open code it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-26 7:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-22 15:03 [PATCH net] gso: fix gso fraglist segmentation after pull from frag_list Willem de Bruijn
2024-09-24 17:47 ` Felix Fietkau
2024-09-24 19:50 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-09-25 8:10 ` Felix Fietkau
2024-09-25 19:09 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-09-25 20:59 ` Felix Fietkau
2024-09-25 21:12 ` Felix Fietkau
2024-09-26 7:19 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-09-26 7:38 ` Felix Fietkau
2024-09-26 7:45 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2024-09-26 7:16 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-09-26 9:17 ` Felix Fietkau
2024-09-26 9:22 ` Willem de Bruijn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=66f5113434b43_802f9294d8@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lena.wang@mediatek.com \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=nbd@nbd.name \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=shiming.cheng@mediatek.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox