netdev - Re: [Patch net] 8021q: fix a memory leak for VLAN 0 device

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:   Tue, 9 Jan 2018 15:06:43 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] 8021q: fix a memory leak for VLAN 0 device

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
<nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On 01/10/2018 12:47 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
>> <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just for reference - this is identical to the first part of:
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/252891/
>>>
>>> I knew this looked familiar. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, except bonding is not even involved. Unless I misread,
>> DaveM rejected it because of bond, which I never touch here.
>>
>> The refcnt is paired in vlan_vid_{add,del}, and the calls are
>> paired in register/unreigster and NETDEV_UP/NETDEV_DOWN
>> after this patch.
>>
>
> You should read all of my replies to Dave, specifically the last one where I
> describe exactly a memory leak, and IIRC the rejection was not because of the
> bonding part but exactly because of this change - the removal of the vlan_id
> conditional.

Quote:
"If you have the 8021q module available, and you bring a device up, it gets
VLAN 0 by default, and if necessary programmed into the HW filters of the
device."

This is exactly a complain about your bonding check added for NETDEVUP,
which is clearly not here.

> I'm not arguing about this patch now, I've said what I had to say back then,
> I just gave it as a reference in case there's still relevant information in
> there.

Me neither, I just want to point it out memory leak is real
and not even related to bond.