netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 RFC net-next] net/vxlan: Fix kernel unaligned access in __vxlan_find

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:	Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:01:34 +0200
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, alexander.duyck@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 RFC net-next] net/vxlan: Fix kernel unaligned access
 in __vxlan_find_mac

On 07/18/2015 08:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote:

> It seems that this code has had unaligned accesses
> on this field even before compare_ether_addr was
> converted to ether_addr_equal.
>
> Is sparc64 the only one that emits / ratelimits that
> unaligned access message?  I looked a little, but I
> didn't find a fixup message when MIPS does unaligned
> accesses.  Are all the other arches silent when
> fixing up unaligned accesses?  Maye adding a generic
> debug only ratelimited message might help remove
> more of these.  As it's not fatal, naybe the sparc64
> message should be KERN_DEBUG/pr_debug.

I'm confused, are we suggesting that we "fix" the unaligned
access by snuffing out the message that complains loudly and correctly
about it?

See also: large block comment above __pksb_trim
about correctly using skb_reserve(). Evidently not being
correctly done for the IPv6-vxlan code path (and possibly
for other encaps too?)

--Sowmini



--
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