On 5/21/26 14:25, Hyunwoo Kim wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 08:06:41PM +0200, Solar Designer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 02:19:42AM +0900, Hyunwoo Kim wrote:
(snip)

>>> 4. https://github.com/v12-security/pocs/tree/main/fragnesia-5db89c99566fc  
>>> (2026-05-15)
>>>
>>> Note that the fourth PoC was confirmed to be blocked as well by the v3
>>> fix (skb_gro_receive) [1] that resolves the third PoC,
>>
>> This matches Sultan's analysis.  It may be that the rediscovery by V12
>> was based on Sultan's public posting on the issue (including exploit).
>> I called them out on this in their Twitter thread and got no reply.
>>
>>> and the v4 [2] and v5 [3] changes address potential issues.
>>>
>>> As long as the in-place path in esp remains, further variants of this
>>> kind are expected to be found in the esp module. As mentioned
>>> previously, I recommend keeping the mitigation in place for the time
>>> being.
>>
>> As a maybe better mitigation, can we somehow make in-place / zero-copy
>> runtime configurable, and not only for esp?
> 
> A generic mechanism would require careful trade-off analysis, and I 
> don't yet have a good idea for it.
> 
> That said, at least for the networking stack, it looks likely that 
> the root cause will be addressed going forward:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

What about netfilter?  That can also mutate packets.  Does it always copy?
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to