netdev - [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: loopback device dev->addr

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: <4A2CEB9E.7080109@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:44:46 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	John Dykstra <john.dykstra1@...il.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: loopback device dev->addr_len fix

Vegard Nossum a écrit :
> 2009/6/7 John Dykstra <john.dykstra1@...il.com>:
>> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 22:23 +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>>> It seems that loopback's hardware address is never initialized by the
>>> kernel. So if userspace attempts to read this address before it has
>>> been set, the kernel will return some uninitialized data (only 6
>>> bytes, though).
>> Thank you for the report, Vegard.
>>
>> I've been unable to reproduce the problem you describe, using
>> 2.6-30-rc8, this test program and a couple of kernel builds for system
>> load:
> [...]
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Looking at the kernel code, it appears that all bytes of struct
>> net_device, including the L2 address, are initialized to zeros at
>> interface creation time.
>>
>> Can you spot a difference between your test procedures and mine that
>> would enable me to reproduce the problem?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I just tried your test program on a linux-next kernel, it works beautifully :-)
> 
> (I made one change: The stack grows downwards on x86, so I think you
> should put child_stack + 16386 as the stack to clone()?)
> 
> As I wrote in reply to Stephen Hemminger, this problem seems to be
> caused by a particular patch in linux-next:
> 
> commit f001fde5eadd915f4858d22ed70d7040f48767cf
> Author: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
> Date:   Tue May 5 02:48:28 2009 +0000
> 
>    net: introduce a list of device addresses dev_addr_list (v6)
> 

I believe following patch should fix this problem.

Thank you

[PATCH net-next-2.6] net: loopback device dev->addr_len fix

commit f001fde5eadd915f4858d22ed70d7040f48767cf 
(net: introduce a list of device addresses dev_addr_list (v6))
added one regression Vegard Nossum found in its testings.

loopback device doesnt have a hw address, we should set its
dev->addr_len to 0, not ETH_ALEN.

Reported-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
---
diff --git a/drivers/net/loopback.c b/drivers/net/loopback.c
index da472c6..40ded4e 100644
--- a/drivers/net/loopback.c
+++ b/drivers/net/loopback.c
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static void loopback_setup(struct net_device *dev)
 {
 	dev->mtu		= (16 * 1024) + 20 + 20 + 12;
 	dev->hard_header_len	= ETH_HLEN;	/* 14	*/
-	dev->addr_len		= ETH_ALEN;	/* 6	*/
+	dev->addr_len		= 0;
 	dev->tx_queue_len	= 0;
 	dev->type		= ARPHRD_LOOPBACK;	/* 0x0001*/
 	dev->flags		= IFF_LOOPBACK;

--
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