netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] mac80211: Check correct skb for shared states before freeing original

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:01:11 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, linville@...driver.com,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] mac80211: Check correct skb for shared states
 before freeing original

On 09/10/2014 01:33 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 16:06 -0400, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> The code for cloning the skb for an acknowledgement was checking to see if
>> the cloned skb was shared and if it was it was then freeing the original
>> skb.  Since a clone should never really be shared I suspect that the
>> intention was to avoid freeing the clone if the original was shared.  As
>> such I am updating the code so that if the original is shared we free the
>> original and use the clone.  This avoids unnecessary work in the next
>> section where we would be cloning the skb if the original is shared.
> 
> Thanks, yeah, I admit that this is clearly fishy.
> 
>> @@ -2087,7 +2087,7 @@ netdev_tx_t ieee80211_subif_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>  			if (id >= 0) {
>>  				info_id = id;
>>  				info_flags |= IEEE80211_TX_CTL_REQ_TX_STATUS;
> 
> Luckily, we practically always go into this path.
> 
>> -			} else if (skb_shared(skb)) {
>> +			} else if (skb_shared(orig_skb)) {
>>  				kfree_skb(orig_skb);
>>  			} else {
>>  				kfree_skb(skb);
> 
> We have a clone already so we could just remove the whole "else if" I
> think, but I'm guessing my intent was to keep it accounted to the socket
> where possible rather than freeing the original in all cases.
> 
> So yeah, I think this makes sense. Maybe we should add a comment to the
> if though to explain this?
> 
> johannes

Actually I think we may need to take a different approach.  The reason I
was in this code was to take a look at a possible refcount issue.

I'll be submitting another patch in a few minutes and will probably be
dropping some of this code anyway.

Thanks,

Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html