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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 22:43:22 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: jkbs@...hat.com Cc: jarod@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] net: centralize net_device min/max MTU checking From: Jakub Sitnicki <jkbs@...hat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:37:24 +0200 > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:20 PM GMT, Jarod Wilson wrote: >> While looking into an MTU issue with sfc, I started noticing that almost >> every NIC driver with an ndo_change_mtu function implemented almost >> exactly the same range checks, and in many cases, that was the only >> practical thing their ndo_change_mtu function was doing. Quite a few >> drivers have either 68, 64, 60 or 46 as their minimum MTU value checked, >> and then various sizes from 1500 to 65535 for their maximum MTU value. We >> can remove a whole lot of redundant code here if we simple store min_mtu >> and max_mtu in net_device, and check against those in net/core/dev.c's >> dev_set_mtu(). >> >> In theory, there should be zero functional change with this patch, it just >> puts the infrastructure in place. Subsequent patches will attempt to start >> using said infrastructure, with theoretically zero change in >> functionality. >> >> CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net> >> CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com> >> --- > > [...] > >> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c >> index c0c291f..5343799 100644 >> --- a/net/core/dev.c >> +++ b/net/core/dev.c >> @@ -6493,9 +6493,17 @@ int dev_set_mtu(struct net_device *dev, int new_mtu) >> if (new_mtu == dev->mtu) >> return 0; >> >> - /* MTU must be positive. */ >> - if (new_mtu < 0) >> + if (new_mtu < dev->min_mtu) { > > Ouch, integral promotions. Looks like you need to keep the < 0 check. > Otherwise new_mtu gets promoted to unsigned int and negative values will > pass the check. Agreed, the < 0 test must be reintroduced.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists