netdev - Re: [next-queue PATCH v3 2/4] net/sched: Fix accessing invalid dev

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2017 10:42:34 -0700
From:   Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        andre.guedes@...el.com, ivan.briano@...el.com,
        boon.leong.ong@...el.com, richardcochran@...il.com,
        henrik@...tad.us, levipearson@...il.com, rodney.cummings@...com
Subject: Re: [next-queue PATCH v3 2/4] net/sched: Fix accessing invalid
 dev_queue

Hi,


On 10/03/2017 08:47 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 16:44 -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> From: Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
>>
>> In qdisc_alloc() the dev_queue pointer was used without any checks being
>> performed. If qdisc_create() gets a null dev_queue pointer, it just
>> passes it along to qdisc_alloc(), leading to a crash. That happens if a
>> root qdisc implements select_queue() and returns a null dev_queue
>> pointer for an "invalid handle", for example.
>>
>> One way to reproduce that is:
>>
>> 1) Setup mqprio
>> $ tc qdisc replace dev enp3s0 parent root mqprio num_tc 3 \
>>      	   map 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 queues 1@0 1@1 2@2 hw 0
>>
>> 2) Replace the first inner qdisc
>> $ tc qdisc replace dev enp3s0 parent 8001:1 pfifo_fast
>>
>> This will lead to the following crash:
> 
> When was this bug added ?
> 
> If this is a consequence of your prior patch (1/4), then this must come
> before it.
> 
> No need to add a stack trace for a not existing bug.
> Instead, explain in the changelog that it is a prep work.
> 
> We try to not break the tree on purpose, so that future bisection will
> not hit a point where the kernel crashes.

Sure, that makes absolute sense. It'll be fixed in our v5 as you've suggested.


Thanks,
Jesus