From: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>,
stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Peter Oskolkov <posk@google.com>, Mao Wenan <maowenan@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [4.4] FragmentSmack security fixes
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 19:41:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1549395678.2925.236.camel@codethink.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190205184105.GA22198@kroah.com>
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 19:41 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 06:26:23PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > This is a backport of upstream changes to fix the FragmentSmack (CVE-
> > 2018-5391) vulnerability.
> >
> > Peter Oskolkov checked an earlier version of this backport, but I have
> > since rebased and added another 3 commits to it. I tested with the
> > ip_defrag.sh self-test that he added upstream, and it passed. I have
> > included the fix that is currently queued for the 4.9, 4.14 and 4.19
> > branches.
>
> That's a lot of patches, some of which I have already queued up in the
> next 4.4 release which will happen in a day or so. Are they all still
> needed after the changes there are merged?
Ah, yes, a lot of the changes are already in your queue and I'm not
certain that all of mine are needed. However I can say that the
changes currently in the queue are not correct:
* The ip_defrag.sh self-test fails: in the ipv4 non-overlap case, after
a few seconds, recv() returns an EAGAIN error. If I modify the script
to continue running the other cases, however, they pass.
* There is a reference leak which prevents the new network namespaces
being torn down ("unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free.
Usage count = 61"). (I see similar warnings with my backport, but the
number gradually decreases and they stop after
* Shutdown hangs.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Software Developer Codethink Ltd
https://www.codethink.co.uk/ Dale House, 35 Dale Street
Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 19:41 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 06:26:23PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > This is a backport of upstream changes to fix the FragmentSmack (CVE-
> > 2018-5391) vulnerability.
> >
> > Peter Oskolkov checked an earlier version of this backport, but I have
> > since rebased and added another 3 commits to it. I tested with the
> > ip_defrag.sh self-test that he added upstream, and it passed. I have
> > included the fix that is currently queued for the 4.9, 4.14 and 4.19
> > branches.
>
> That's a lot of patches, some of which I have already queued up in the
> next 4.4 release which will happen in a day or so. Are they all still
> needed after the changes there are merged?
Ah, yes, a lot of the fragment-handling changes are already in your
queue and I'm not certain that all of mine are needed. However I don't
think the changes in your queue are complete and correct. When I run
the ip_defrag.sh self-test:
1. The ipv4 non-overlap case fails after a few seconds, with recv()
returning an EAGAIN error. If I modify the script to continue after an
error, the other cases do pass, however. This is not a regression from
4.4.172, but with my changes all cases pass.
2. There is a reference leak which prevents the new network namespaces
being cleaned up ("unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free.
Usage count = 61"). With 4.4.172 or with my changes applied, the
warnings appear, but only for about a minute with the number gradually
decreasing. So this is a regression.
3. If I run the test again, it hangs. Shutting down the VM also hangs.
I think this is related to the previous issue. Again, this is a
regression.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Software Developer Codethink Ltd
https://www.codethink.co.uk/ Dale House, 35 Dale Street
Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-05 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-05 18:26 [4.4] FragmentSmack security fixes Ben Hutchings
2019-02-05 18:41 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-05 19:41 ` Ben Hutchings [this message]
2019-02-06 21:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-07 11:26 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-09 1:58 ` maowenan
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=1549395678.2925.236.camel@codethink.co.uk \
--to=ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk \
--cc=Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=maowenan@huawei.com \
--cc=posk@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).