On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Tariq Toukan <tar...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 14/05/2018 3:20 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com>
>> Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 13:24:25 -0400
>>
>>> From: Willem de Bruijn <will...@google.com>
>>>
>>> Packet sockets allow construction of packets shorter than
>>> dev->hard_header_len to accommodate protocols with variable length
>>> link layer headers. These packets are padded to dev->hard_header_len,
>>> because some device drivers interpret that as a minimum packet size.
>>>
>>> packet_snd reserves dev->hard_header_len bytes on allocation.
>>> SOCK_DGRAM sockets call skb_push in dev_hard_header() to ensure that
>>> link layer headers are stored in the reserved range. SOCK_RAW sockets
>>> do the same in tpacket_snd, but not in packet_snd.
>>>
>>> Syzbot was able to send a zero byte packet to a device with massive
>>> 116B link layer header, causing padding to cross over into skb_shinfo.
>>> Fix this by writing from the start of the llheader reserved range also
>>> in the case of packet_snd/SOCK_RAW.
>>>
>>> Update skb_set_network_header to the new offset. This also corrects
>>> it for SOCK_DGRAM, where it incorrectly double counted reserve due to
>>> the skb_push in dev_hard_header.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 9ed988cd5915 ("packet: validate variable length ll headers")
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+71d74a5406d02057d...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <will...@google.com>
>>
>>
>> Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks Willem.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> One of our regression tests started failing. Once this patch is reverted,
> test passes.
>
> The tests add flow steering rules in the receiver side and in the sender
> side it send the packet with some RAW socket applications. Then received
> side gets completion with error.
>
> Our verification team compared the packets between the stable and the broken
> version, in the broken version we have some extra bytes at the end of the
> packet.
>
> It looks like some bad push to the SKB, maybe the conditional reserved
> addition should be more strict?
>
> Any idea?Thanks for reporting, sorry for the breakage. I think I might. This skb_push moves back the start of skb->data in the same way that tpacket_snd does. But it does not reduce the length passed to skb_put, so this might double count hard_header_len. Let me construct a test.
