linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/core: ensure features get disabled on new lower devs

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]

Message-ID: <56393CE5.50704@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:01:57 -0800
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/core: ensure features get disabled on new
 lower devs

On 11/03/2015 02:11 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On 11/03/2015 12:36 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>> With moving netdev_sync_lower_features() after the .ndo_set_features
>>> calls, I neglected to verify that devices added *after* a flag had been
>>> disabled on an upper device were properly added with that flag
>>> disabled as
>>> well. This currently happens, because we exit 
>>> __netdev_update_features()
>>> when we see dev->features == features for the upper dev. We can retain
>>> the
>>> optimization of leaving without calling .ndo_set_features with a bit of
>>> tweaking and a goto here.
>>>
>>> Changing err to ret was somewhat arbitrary and makes the patch look 
>>> more
>>> involved, but seems to better fit the altered use.
> ...
>>> +     if (!ret) {
>>> +         dev->features = features;
>>> +         ret = 1;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>
>> I would take the "ret = 1;" out of the if statement and let it stay here
>> by itself. Technically anything that traversed this path was returning 1
>> previously so we probably want to retain that behavior.
>
> Ah, that. I took a look at all the callers of 
> __netdev_update_features, and most don't even check return value, the 
> one that does (netdev_update_features) only cares if its zero or not 
> zero, so I figured it didn't really matter here, but it would indeed 
> return 2 now instead of 1, if it got that from ndo_set_features. For 
> consistency's sake, I can respin and just always set ret = 1 though.

One thought I just had would be to make it so that we assign -1 to ret 
and then jump inside the earlier features==features check rather than 
altering the ret value here.  Then we could just use a ternary value at 
the end and just do "return ret < 0 ? 0 : 1;".  That would take care of 
the return values and the features flag you called out below.

>>> +sync_lower:
>>>     /* some features must be disabled on lower devices when disabled
>>>      * on an upper device (think: bonding master or bridge)
>>>      */
>>>     netdev_for_each_lower_dev(dev, lower, iter)
>>>         netdev_sync_lower_features(dev, lower, features);
>>>
>>> -     if (!err)
>>> -         dev->features = features;
>>
>> You could just alter the if statement here to check for a non-zero ret
>> value since you should have it as either 0 or 1. It shouldn't have any
>> other values.
>>
>> That way you will have disabled the feature on the lower devices before
>> advertising that it has been disabled on the upper device.
>
> If this check is down here, the goto will trigger, setting 
> dev->features = features, but then, we got there because dev->features 
> == features already, so meh. But it would also NOT trigger in the case 
> of ndo_set_features returning 0 anymore, because we set ret = 1. Or am 
> I missing something or misunderstanding what you're suggesting here?
>

--
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/