linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: dsa: microchip: provide a list of valid protocols for xmit handler

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:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 20:01:31 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Sean Nyekjaer <sean@...nix.com>
Cc:     Madhuri.Sripada@...rochip.com, Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com, ceggers@...i.de,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: dsa: microchip: provide a list of valid
 protocols for xmit handler

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:45:12PM +0100, Sean Nyekjaer wrote:
> > Don't just leave it there, also explain why.
> 
> Message to me?
> 
> /Sean

No, to Madhuri (as the To: field suggests).

In the Linux kernel it's not a good practice to put defensive checks
which don't have a logical justification, because other people end up
not knowing why they're there, and when they can be removed. Checking
for the tagging protocol gives a very clear indication and traceability
of why it is being done, on the other hand.

If the ds->tagger_data is NULL for a tagging protocol for which it was
expected it shouldn't be, and the DSA core still decides to call
ds->ops->connect_tag_protocol() anyway, this is a violation of the API
contract established with all drivers that use this mechanism. Papering
over a bug in the DSA core results in silent failures, which means that
any further behavior is unpredictable. So I'd very much prefer the
system to fail fast in case of a bug in the framework, so that it can be
reported and fixed. With rigorous testing, it will fail earlier than in
the production stage.

I only said "don't leave it there, also explain why" because I really
don't appreciate review comments spreading FUD, for which I'd have to
spend 20-30 minutes to explain why leaving out the NULL pointer checking
is, in fact, safe.

Of course, I am not excluding a not-yet-found bug either, but I am
strongly encouraging Madhuri to walk through the code path and point
it to us, and strongly discouraging lazy review comments. It's not fair
for me to reply to a 5 word sentence with a wall of text. So I replied
with a phrase of comparable length to the suggestion.