On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:40 PM Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:49:17 +0100 > Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:18 AM Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:53:36 +0100 > > > Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 4:24 PM Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 06:57:35 -0800 > > > > > Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Might be cause by commit b8a51b38e4d4dec3e379d52c0fe1a66827f7cf1e > > > > > > fou, fou6: ICMP error handlers for FoU and GUE > > > > > > > > > > This: > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/fou.c b/net/ipv4/fou.c > > > > > index 0d0ad19ecb87..20a6de26d146 100644 > > > > > --- a/net/ipv4/fou.c > > > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/fou.c > > > > > @@ -1008,6 +1008,9 @@ static int gue_err_proto_handler(int proto, > > > > > struct sk_buff *skb, u32 info) > > > > > { > > > > > const struct net_protocol *ipprot = > > > > > rcu_dereference(inet_protos[proto]); > > > > > > > > > > + if (ipprot == IPPROTO_UDP) > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > + > > > > > if (ipprot && ipprot->err_handler) { > > > > > if (!ipprot->err_handler(skb, info)) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > > > should fix the issue, but I still have to run tests and make sure we > > > > > don't hit similar cases. > > > > > > > > Please don't forget to add a regression test for it too ;) > > > > > > Where would you suggest to add this? The only selftest that goes > > > > I dunno. But there must be some place for such tests, right? > > Not as far as I know. The selftests checking this path, by design, only > use supported configurations, they don't forge packets. > > Maybe it would be nice to have a semi-automated way to isolate and > describe/name specific conditions found by syzbot via fuzzing and turn > those into tests that are then repeated periodically. I'm not sure how > that would look like, but I think it's still more maintainable than a > pile of C reproducers with forged packets in selftests/net.
It would be nice to do something like this. Filed https://github.com/google/syzkaller/issues/884 However, there are few open questions that I am not sure how to resolve yet... > Eric, Cong, Xin, as you also recently fixed a nice deal of similar cases > reported by syzbot, what do you think? Did you ever feel the need to > turn a syzbot reproducer into a regression test case? > > > > through this path currently is net/pmtu.sh, but as configuration of an > > > actual UDP-in-GUE tunnel is currently not supported, I would really > > > need to forge that specific packet, so that doesn't seem to be a good > > > fit. > > > > > > Won't syzbot add this to some list of reproducers that are checked in > > > the future? > > > > It won't. Also fuzzing is complementary to testing, not a replacement: > > Indeed, but that doesn't mean we need to limit the potential of fuzzing > because "it's not testing". It can be used to check for regressions, > too, especially in these cases. > > > https://twitter.com/dvyukov/status/1074719682962358272 > > Now, I'm extremely thankful for the work you're doing and especially > for finding this subtle condition with syzbot, but this is quite > inaccurate. To be exposed to this issue, the user would need to > have the fou module loaded (it won't autoload), which is used quite > rarely, and, on top of that, have a UDP tunnel configured. It wouldn't > have been the kind of "evil packet crashes the internet" scenario you > were dreaming of ;) Okay, I see. Full bug assessment is hard. I mess it both ways for different bugs. But I did not claim that it does not require some setup :) And maybe there is somebody important on the internet that uses such setup. Who knows.