linux-kernel - [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: dev_addr

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, 08 Jun 2009 14:13:32 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	John Dykstra <john.dykstra1@...il.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: dev_addr_init() fix

Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Vegard Nossum a écrit :
>> 2009/6/7 John Dykstra <john.dykstra1@...il.com>:
>>> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 22:23 +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>>>> It seems that loopback's hardware address is never initialized by the
>>>> kernel. So if userspace attempts to read this address before it has
>>>> been set, the kernel will return some uninitialized data (only 6
>>>> bytes, though).
>>> Thank you for the report, Vegard.
>>>
>>> I've been unable to reproduce the problem you describe, using
>>> 2.6-30-rc8, this test program and a couple of kernel builds for system
>>> load:
>> [...]
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Looking at the kernel code, it appears that all bytes of struct
>>> net_device, including the L2 address, are initialized to zeros at
>>> interface creation time.
>>>
>>> Can you spot a difference between your test procedures and mine that
>>> would enable me to reproduce the problem?
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just tried your test program on a linux-next kernel, it works beautifully :-)
>>
>> (I made one change: The stack grows downwards on x86, so I think you
>> should put child_stack + 16386 as the stack to clone()?)
>>
>> As I wrote in reply to Stephen Hemminger, this problem seems to be
>> caused by a particular patch in linux-next:
>>
>> commit f001fde5eadd915f4858d22ed70d7040f48767cf
>> Author: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
>> Date:   Tue May 5 02:48:28 2009 +0000
>>
>>    net: introduce a list of device addresses dev_addr_list (v6)
>>
> 
> I believe following patch should fix this problem.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: loopback device dev->addr_len fix
> 
> commit f001fde5eadd915f4858d22ed70d7040f48767cf 
> (net: introduce a list of device addresses dev_addr_list (v6))
> added one regression Vegard Nossum found in its testings.
> 
> loopback device doesnt have a hw address, we should set its
> dev->addr_len to 0, not ETH_ALEN.
> 
> Reported-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>

Oh well, following is probably even more appropriate

[PATCH net-next-2.6] net: dev_addr_init() fix

commit f001fde5eadd915f4858d22ed70d7040f48767cf 
(net: introduce a list of device addresses dev_addr_list (v6))
added one regression Vegard Nossum found in its testings.

dev_addr_init() incorrectly uses sizeof() operator

Reported-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
---
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 1f38401..65387d9 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -3655,8 +3655,8 @@ static int dev_addr_init(struct net_device *dev)
 	/* rtnl_mutex must be held here */
 
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->dev_addr_list);
-	memset(addr, 0, sizeof(*addr));
-	err = __hw_addr_add(&dev->dev_addr_list, NULL, addr, sizeof(*addr),
+	memset(addr, 0, sizeof(addr));
+	err = __hw_addr_add(&dev->dev_addr_list, NULL, addr, sizeof(addr),
 			    NETDEV_HW_ADDR_T_LAN);
 	if (!err) {
 		/*

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/