From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <0547edfa-bb75-62bb-9a33-41a9b9603a0e@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:41:52 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v9] virtio-net: support inner header hash References: <20230218143715.841-1-hengqi@linux.alibaba.com> <20230221124518-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <4d123e32-1ad0-e692-7fa6-0565eb34c487@redhat.com> <0f53212f-a89b-ad3c-73e3-a7a7b5533058@linux.alibaba.com> <1047920c-5dd5-8f31-0c4c-a108f36155f8@redhat.com> From: Heng Qi In-Reply-To: <1047920c-5dd5-8f31-0c4c-a108f36155f8@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Jason Wang , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, Parav Pandit , Yuri Benditovich , Cornelia Huck , Xuan Zhuo List-ID: 在 2023/2/23 上午10:50, Jason Wang 写道: > Hi: > > 在 2023/2/22 14:46, Heng Qi 写道: >> Hi, Jason. Long time no see. :) >> >> 在 2023/2/22 上午11:22, Jason Wang 写道: >>> >>> 在 2023/2/22 01:50, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道: >>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 10:37:15PM +0800, Heng Qi wrote: >>>>> +\subparagraph{Security risks between encapsulated packets and RSS} >>>>> +There may be potential security risks when encapsulated packets >>>>> using RSS to >>>>> +select queues for placement. When a user inside a tunnel tries to >>>>> control the >>> >>> >>> What do you mean by "user" here? Is it a remote or local one? >>> >> >> I mean a remote attacker who is not under the control of the tunnel >> owner. > > > Anything may the tunnel different? I think this can happen even > without tunnel (and even with single queue). I agree. > > How to mitigate those attackers seems more like a implementation > details where might require fair queuing or other QOS technology which > has been well studied. I am also not sure whether this point needs to be focused on in the spec, and I see that the protection against tunnel DoS is more protected outside the device, but it seems to be okay to give some attack reminders. Thanks. > > It seems out of the scope of the spec (unless we want to let driver > manageable QOS). > > Thanks > > >> >> Thanks. >> >>> >>>>> +enqueuing of encapsulated packets, then the user can flood the >>>>> device with invaild >>>>> +packets, and the flooded packets may be hashed into the same >>>>> queue as packets in >>>>> +other normal tunnels, which causing the queue to overflow. >>>>> + >>>>> +This can pose several security risks: >>>>> +\begin{itemize} >>>>> +\item  Encapsulated packets in the normal tunnels cannot be >>>>> enqueued due to queue >>>>> +       overflow, resulting in a large amount of packet loss. >>>>> +\item  The delay and retransmission of packets in the normal >>>>> tunnels are extremely increased. >>>>> +\item  The user can observe the traffic information and enqueue >>>>> information of other normal >>>>> +       tunnels, and conduct targeted DoS attacks. >>>>> +\end{\itemize} >>>>> + >>>> Hmm with this all written out it sounds pretty severe. >>> >>> >>> I think we need first understand whether or not it's a problem that >>> we need to solve at spec level: >>> >>> 1) anything make encapsulated packets different or why we can't hit >>> this problem without encapsulation >>> >>> 2) whether or not it's the implementation details that the spec >>> doesn't need to care (or how it is solved in real NIC) >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>>> At this point with no ways to mitigate, I don't feel this is something >>>> e.g. Linux can enable.  I am not going to nack the spec patch if >>>> others  find this somehow useful e.g. for dpdk. >>>> How about CC e.g. dpdk devs or whoever else is going to use this >>>> and asking them for the opinion? >>>> >>>> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org