Thread (21 messages) flat view 21 messages, 2 authors, 2021-09-06

Re: [PATCH net] ip_gre: validate csum_start only if CHECKSUM_PARTIAL

From: Alexander Duyck <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-03 23:14:09

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 12:38 PM Willem de Bruijn
[off-list ref] wrote:
<snip>
quoted
whereas if the offset is stored somewhere in the unstripped data we
could then drop the packet and count it as a drop without having to
modify the frame via the skb_pull.
This is a broader issue that userspace can pass any csum_start as long
as it is within packet bounds. We could address it here specifically
for the GRE header. But that still leaves many potentially bad offsets
further in the packet in this case, and all the other cases. Checking
that specific header seems a bit arbitrary to me, and might actually
give false confidence.

We could certainly move the validation from gre_handle_offloads to
before skb_pull, to make it more obvious *why* the check exists.
Agreed. My main concern is that the csum_start is able to be located
somewhere where the userspace didn't write. For the most part the
csum_start and csum_offset just needs to be restricted to the regions
that the userspace actually wrote to.
quoted
quoted
The negative underflow and kernel crash is very specific to
lco_csum, which calculates the offset between csum_offset
and transport_offset. Standard checksum offset doesn't.

One alternative fix, then, would be to add a negative overflow
check in lco_csum itself.
That only has three callers and unfortunately by the time we hit
that for GRE in gre_build_header, there no longer is a path to
cleanly dropping the packet and returning an error.
Right. We could find the problem there but it doesn't solve the issue.
The problem is the expectation that the offset exists in the area
after the checksum for the tunnel header, not before.
quoted
I don't find this bad input whack-a-mole elegant either. But I
thought it was the least bad option..
The part that has been confusing me is how the virtio_net_hdr could
have been pointing as the IP or GRE headers since they shouldn't have
been present on the frame provided by the userspace. I think I am
starting to see now.

So in the case of af_packet it looks like it is calling
dev_hard_header which calls header_ops->create before doing the
virtio_net_hdr_to_skb call. Do I have that right?
Mostly yes. That is the case for SOCK_DGRAM. For SOCK_RAW, the caller
is expected to have prepared these headers.

Note that for the ip_gre device to have header_ops, this will be
ipgre_header_ops, which .create member function comment starts with
"/* Nice toy. Unfortunately, useless in real life :-)". We recently
had a small series of fixes related to this special case and packet
sockets, such as commit fdafed459998 ("ip_gre: set
dev->hard_header_len and dev->needed_headroom properly"). This case of
a GRE device that receives packets with outer IP + GRE headers is out
of the ordinary.
I'm not sure the comment is about the functionality of the function as
much as the addressing. Seems to be about setting up a multicast GRE
configuration.
quoted
Maybe for those
cases we need to look at adding an unsigned int argument to
virtio_net_hdr_to_skb in which we could pass 0 for the unused case or
dev->hard_header_len in the cases where we have something like
af_packet that is transmitting over an ipgre tunnel. The general idea
is to prevent these virtio_net_hdr_to_skb calls from pointing the
csum_start into headers that userspace was not responsible for
populating.
One issue with that is that dev->hard_header_len itself is imprecise
for protocols with variable length link layer headers. There, too, we
have had a variety of bug fixes in the past.

It also adds cost to every user of virtio_net_hdr, while we only know
one issue in a rare case of the IP_GRE device.
Quick question, the assumption is that the checksum should always be
performed starting no earlier than the transport header right? Looking
over virtio_net_hdr_to_skb it looks like it is already verifying the
transport header is in the linear portion of the skb. I'm wondering if
we couldn't just look at adding a check to verify the transport offset
is <= csum start? We might also be able to get rid of one of the two
calls to pskb_may_pull by doing that.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help