linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: icmp: introduce __ping_queue_rcv

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: <CADxym3YLqMWW-hMv6CzQyEfJqd+RFPoCacmtTyy-3HBHX_5KUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Mar 2022 16:36:22 +0800
From:   Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, xeb@...l.ru,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Talal Ahmad <talalahmad@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>,
        Hao Peng <flyingpeng@...cent.com>,
        Mengen Sun <mengensun@...cent.com>, dongli.zhang@...cle.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Biao Jiang <benbjiang@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: icmp: introduce __ping_queue_rcv_skb()
 to report drop reasons

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:33 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 13:25 +0800, Menglong Dong wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:56 AM David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/16/22 12:31 AM, menglong8.dong@...il.com wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ping.c b/net/ipv4/ping.c
> > > > index 3ee947557b88..9a1ea6c263f8 100644
> > > > --- a/net/ipv4/ping.c
> > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/ping.c
> > > > @@ -934,16 +934,24 @@ int ping_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, int noblock,
> > > >  }
> > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ping_recvmsg);
> > > >
> > > > -int ping_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > +static enum skb_drop_reason __ping_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk,
> > > > +                                              struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > >  {
> > > > +     enum skb_drop_reason reason;
> > > > +
> > > >       pr_debug("ping_queue_rcv_skb(sk=%p,sk->num=%d,skb=%p)\n",
> > > >                inet_sk(sk), inet_sk(sk)->inet_num, skb);
> > > > -     if (sock_queue_rcv_skb(sk, skb) < 0) {
> > > > -             kfree_skb(skb);
> > > > +     if (sock_queue_rcv_skb_reason(sk, skb, &reason) < 0) {
> > > > +             kfree_skb_reason(skb, reason);
> > > >               pr_debug("ping_queue_rcv_skb -> failed\n");
> > > > -             return -1;
> > > > +             return reason;
> > > >       }
> > > > -     return 0;
> > > > +     return SKB_NOT_DROPPED_YET;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +int ping_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     return __ping_queue_rcv_skb(sk, skb) ?: -1;
> > > >  }
> > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ping_queue_rcv_skb);
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is a generic proto callback and you are now changing its return
> > > code in a way that seems to conflict with existing semantics
> >
> > The return value of ping_queue_rcv_skb() seems not changed.
> > In the previous code, -1 is returned on failure and 0 for success.
> > This logic isn't changed, giving __ping_queue_rcv_skb() != 0 means
> > failure and -1 is returned. Isn't it?
>
> With this patch, on failure __ping_queue_rcv_skb() returns 'reason' (>
> 0) and ping_queue_rcv_skb() returns the same value.
>
> On success __ping_queue_rcv_skb() returns SKB_NOT_DROPPED_YET (==0) and
> ping_queue_rcv_skb() return -1.
>
> You need to preserve the old ping_queue_rcv_skb() return values, under
> the same circumstances.

Oops...my mistake....:)

Thanks for your explanation!

Menglong Dong

>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
>