Hi Ed, Had some trouble with email yesterday (forgot to renew domain registration) and this reply might not have made it out. Apologies if it's a repost. On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:58:47PM +0000, Edward Cree wrote: > On 27/02/2023 22:04, Daniel Xu wrote: > > I don't believe full L4 headers are required in the first fragment. > > Sufficiently sneaky attackers can, I think, send a byte at a time to > > subvert your proposed algorithm. Storing skb data seems inevitable here. > > Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here. > > My thinking was that legitimate traffic would never do this and thus if > your first fragment doesn't have enough data to make a determination > then you just DROP the packet. Right, that would be practical. I had some discussion with coworkers and the other option on the table is to drop all fragments. At least for us in the cloud, fragments are heavily frowned upon (where are they not..) anyways. > > What I find valuable about this patch series is that we can > > leverage the well understood and battle hardened kernel facilities. So > > avoid all the correctness and security issues that the kernel has spent > > 20+ years fixing. > > I can certainly see the argument here. I guess it's a question of are > you more worried about the DoS from tricking the validator into thinking > good fragments are bad (the reverse is irrelevant because if you can > trick a validator into thinking your bad fragment belongs to a previously > seen good packet, then you can equally trick a reassembler into stitching > your bad fragment into that packet), or are you more worried about the > DoS from tying lots of memory down in the reassembly cache. Equal balance of concerns on my side. Ideally there are no dropping of valid packets and DoS is very hard to achieve. > Even with reordering handling, a data structure to record which ranges of > a packet have been seen takes much less memory than storing the complete > fragment bodies. (Just a simple bitmap of 8-byte blocks — the resolution > of iph->frag_off — reduces size by a factor of 64, not counting all the > overhead of a struct sk_buff for each fragment in the queue. Or you > could re-use the rbtree-based code from the reassembler, just with a > freshly allocated node containing only offset & length, instead of the > whole SKB.) Yeah, now that you say that, it doesn't sound too bad on space side. But I do wonder -- how much code and complexity is that going to be? For example I think ipv6 frags have a 60s reassembly timeout which adds more stuff to consider. And probably even more I've already forgotten. B/c at least on the kernel side, this series is 80% code for tests. And the kfunc wrappers are not very invasive at all. Plus it's wrapping infra that hasn't changed much for decades. > And having a BPF helper effectively consume the skb is awkward, as you > noted; someone is likely to decide that skb_copy() is too slow, try to > add ctx invalidation, and thereby create a whole new swathe of potential > correctness and security issues. Yep. I did try that. While the verifier bits weren't too tricky, there are a lot of infra concerns to solve: * https://github.com/danobi/linux/commit/35a66af8d54cca647b0adfc7c1da7105d2603dde * https://github.com/danobi/linux/commit/e8c86ea75e2ca8f0631632d54ef763381308711e * https://github.com/danobi/linux/commit/972bcf769f41fbfa7f84ce00faf06b5b57bc6f7a But FWIW, fragmented packets are kinda a corner case anyways. I don't think it would be resonable to expect high perf when packets are in play. > Plus, imagine trying to support this in a hardware-offload XDP device. > They'd have to reimplement the entire frag cache, which is a much bigger > attack surface than just a frag validator, and they couldn't leverage > the battle-hardened kernel implementation. Hmm, well this helper is restricted to TC progs for now. I don't quite see a path to enabling for XDP as there would have to be at a minimum quite a few allocations to handle frags. So not sure XDP is a factor at the moment. > > > And make it trivial for the next person that comes > > along to do the right thing. > > Fwiw the validator approach could *also* be a helper, it doesn't have to > be something the BPF developer writes for themselves. > > But if after thinking about the possibility you still prefer your way, I > won't try to stop you — I just wanted to ensure it had been considered. Thank you for the discussion. The thought had come to mind originally, but I shied away after seeing some of the reassembly details. Would be interested in hearing more from other folks. Thanks, Daniel
