linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/9] net: use core MTU range checking in virt drivers

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: <f7tshrpygvq.fsf@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:24:25 -0400
From:   Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Shrikrishna Khare <skhare@...are.com>,
        "VMware\, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
        Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@...rix.com>,
        David Kershner <david.kershner@...sys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/9] net: use core MTU range checking in virt drivers

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:37:20PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:23:54PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:55:21PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> ...
>> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>> > > index fad84f3..720809f 100644
>> > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>> > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>> > > @@ -1419,17 +1419,6 @@ static const struct ethtool_ops virtnet_ethtool_ops = {
>> > >  	.set_settings = virtnet_set_settings,
>> > >  };
>> > >  
>> > > -#define MIN_MTU 68
>> > > -#define MAX_MTU 65535
>> > > -
>> > > -static int virtnet_change_mtu(struct net_device *dev, int new_mtu)
>> > > -{
>> > > -	if (new_mtu < MIN_MTU || new_mtu > MAX_MTU)
>> > > -		return -EINVAL;
>> > > -	dev->mtu = new_mtu;
>> > > -	return 0;
>> > > -}
>> > > -
>> > >  static const struct net_device_ops virtnet_netdev = {
>> > >  	.ndo_open            = virtnet_open,
>> > >  	.ndo_stop   	     = virtnet_close,
>> > > @@ -1437,7 +1426,6 @@ static const struct net_device_ops virtnet_netdev = {
>> > >  	.ndo_validate_addr   = eth_validate_addr,
>> > >  	.ndo_set_mac_address = virtnet_set_mac_address,
>> > >  	.ndo_set_rx_mode     = virtnet_set_rx_mode,
>> > > -	.ndo_change_mtu	     = virtnet_change_mtu,
>> > >  	.ndo_get_stats64     = virtnet_stats,
>> > >  	.ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid = virtnet_vlan_rx_add_vid,
>> > >  	.ndo_vlan_rx_kill_vid = virtnet_vlan_rx_kill_vid,
>> > > @@ -1748,6 +1736,9 @@ static bool virtnet_validate_features(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> > >  	return true;
>> > >  }
>> > >  
>> > > +#define MIN_MTU ETH_MIN_MTU
>> > > +#define MAX_MTU ETH_MAX_MTU
>> > > +
>> > 
>> > Can we drop these btw?
>> 
>> Bah. Yeah. Should have just used them directly. I didn't add ETH_MAX_MTU
>> until after doing the virtio_net changes, so I missed that.
>> 
>> > >  static int virtnet_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> > >  {
>> > >  	int i, err;
>> > > @@ -1821,6 +1812,10 @@ static int virtnet_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> > >  
>> > >  	dev->vlan_features = dev->features;
>> > >  
>> > > +	/* MTU range: 68 - 65535 */
>> > > +	dev->min_mtu = MIN_MTU;
>> > > +	dev->max_mtu = MAX_MTU;
>> > > +
>> > >  	/* Configuration may specify what MAC to use.  Otherwise random. */
>> > >  	if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC))
>> > >  		virtio_cread_bytes(vdev,
>> > > @@ -1875,8 +1870,10 @@ static int virtnet_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> > >  		mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>> > >  				     offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>> > >  					      mtu));
>> > > -		if (virtnet_change_mtu(dev, mtu))
>> > > +		if (mtu < dev->min_mtu || mtu > dev->max_mtu)
>> > 
>> > In fact the > max_mtu branch does not make sense since a 16 bit
>> > value can't exceed MAX_MTU.
>> 
>> Hm. mtu is declared as an int, not sure if there's any sort of type
>> promotion to be worried about (not an area I know much/anything about).
>
> Not by design, that's for sure.

If you're really worried, we could declare it as a u16. The value
returned from virtio_cread16 is type u16, and there are no type
promotion rules I'm aware of that would do the wrong thing there.

>> Certainly something that could be looked into as a minor optimization,
>> though it's only in a probe path and shouldn't hurt anything, so ... meh?
>
> Right. Aaron said he's working on a patch that essentially does
> dev->max_mtu = mtu after validation, so this part will look
> a bit silly there.

Agreed, but I can do that in my patch if you don't want the extra churn.

-Aaron