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-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org