netdev - Re: RFC: [PATCH 2/3] netdevice: Fix promiscuity and allmulti overflow

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: <48563799.4080200@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:51:21 +0800
From:	Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	NETDEV <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: [PATCH 2/3] netdevice: Fix promiscuity and allmulti overflow

Patrick McHardy said the following on 2008-6-16 17:38:
> Wang Chen wrote:
>> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>> index 5829630..a3c692d 100644
>> --- a/net/core/dev.c
>> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
>> @@ -2753,10 +2753,20 @@ static void __dev_set_promiscuity(struct
>> net_device *dev, int inc)
>>  
>>      ASSERT_RTNL();
>>  
>> +    dev->flags |= IFF_PROMISC;
>>      if ((dev->promiscuity += inc) == 0)
>> -        dev->flags &= ~IFF_PROMISC;
>> -    else
>> -        dev->flags |= IFF_PROMISC;
>> +        /*
>> +         * Avoid overflow.
>> +         * If inc causes overflow, ignore it and warn user.
>> +         */
>> +        if (inc < 0)
>> +            dev->flags &= ~IFF_PROMISC;
>> +        else {
>> +            dev->promiscuity -= inc;
>> +            printk(KERN_ERR "%s: promiscuity touches roof, "
>> +                "set promiscuity failed, promiscuity feature "
>> +                "of device will be broken.\n");
>> +        }
> 
> Additional parens around the inner block would make this more
> readable.
> 

Will fix.

> I question the need for this though, userspace can only trigger
> an increase/decrease by one no matter how often it enables
> the ALLMULTI/PROMISC flags, and I doubt any codepath in the
> kernel would lead to an overflow.
> 

How about mif6_add()?
Do we have a limit for mif6?

> If this can really happen it would be better to leave the
> counter untouched and return an error, we already have too
> many device operations that might fail more or less silently.
> 

This can be done.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html