netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tun: fix recovery from gup errors

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:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:54:12 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Brad Hubbard <bhubbard@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tun: fix recovery from gup errors

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 07:36:21PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 23-06-2013 18:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> >get user pages might fail partially in tun zero copy
> >mode. To recover we need to put all pages that we got,
> >but code used a wrong index resulting in double-free
> >errors.
> 
> >Reported-by: Brad Hubbard <bhubbard@...hat.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> >---
> 
> >I haven't figured out why do we get failures,
> >but recovery is clearly wrong.
> 
> >This is also -stable material.
> 
> >  drivers/net/tun.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> >diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> >index bfa9bb4..c098b1e 100644
> >--- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> >+++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> >@@ -1010,8 +1010,9 @@ static int zerocopy_sg_from_iovec(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct iovec *from,
> >  			return -EMSGSIZE;
> >  		num_pages = get_user_pages_fast(base, size, 0, &page[i]);
> >  		if (num_pages != size) {
> >-			for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++)
> >-				put_page(page[i]);
> >+			int j;
> 
>   Empty line wouldn't hurt here, after declaration.
> 
> >+			for (j = 0; j < num_pages; j++)
> >+				put_page(page[i + j]);

I think it's clearer without: this is the only code
within this block, declaration is really part of
the loop that comes after it.
An empty line would break it up visually.

--
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