netdev - Re: [PATCH] [bonding]: clear header

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:38:49 -0800
From:	Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
To:	Wengang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>
cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [bonding]: clear header_ops when last slave detached

Wengang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Could anybody please review this patch?

	I don't see that the original of this ever came through netdev.

>thanks,
>wengang
>
>于 2014年11月13日 10:19, Wengang Wang 写道:
>> When last slave of a bonding master is removed, the bonding then does not work.
>> When packet_snd is called against with a master net_device, it accesses
>> header_ops. In case the header_ops is not valid any longer(say module unloaded)
>> it will then access an invalid memory address.
>> This patch try to fix this issue by clearing header_ops when last slave
>> detached.

	Am I correct in presuming that this behavior is limited to ipoib
slaves only?  I don't see that this could occur with ethernet slaves, as
eth_header_ops isn't part of a module.  This needs to be mentioned in
the commit log.

>> Signed-off-by: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> index c9ac06c..84a34fc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> @@ -1728,6 +1728,8 @@ static int __bond_release_one(struct net_device *bond_dev,
>>   	unblock_netpoll_tx();
>>   	synchronize_rcu();
>>   	bond->slave_cnt--;
>> +	if (!bond->slave_cnt)
>> +		bond->dev->header_ops = NULL;
>>     	if (!bond_has_slaves(bond)) {
>>   		call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGEADDR, bond->dev);

	I believe your addition could be moved into the block for the
next if, as "!bond->slave_cnt" is essentially "!bond_has_slaves()".

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com
--
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