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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:38:16 +0400
From:	"Alexander Y. Fomichev" <>
Subject: Is it normal to have cross namespace symlinks?

Hello guys!

Recently i switched to 3.14.x stable branch and i've got a bunch of

[   44.717746] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[   44.717750] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 7007 at fs/sysfs/dir.c:52
sysfs_warn_dup+0x86/0xa0() [   44.717751] sysfs: cannot create
duplicate filename

[   37.759856] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[   37.759863] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3822 at fs/sysfs/dir.c:52
sysfs_warn_dup+0x86/0xa0() [   37.759864] sysfs: cannot create
duplicate filename '/devices/virtual/net/bond0/upper_eth0'

It was triggered by renaming of macvlan interfaces in a freshly created
network namespaces. Just start two lxc containers one by one with
macvlans on the same lowerdev and rename devices inside containers (with
the same name) and voila.

I investigated problem a bit and i see that code in net/core/dev.c
which working with sysfs symlinks upper_dev / lower_dev is absolutely
unaware of namespaces. I mean code which uses functions
just not takes into account that dev and adj_dev could be in a
different namespaces. If userland asks to rename interface in a
new namespace this code renames an upper_dev link
in a parent namespace accordingly. I hadn't tried but i'll
bet it works vice-versa as well. It leads to warnings i've wrote above
and also creation inside namespaces a pretty meaningless links:
-> ../../../pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.4/0000:05:00.0/net/eth1
or probably deletion of symlinks of a perfectly valid devices. 

At the same time this issue is not affecting most of current
functionality and seems like nobody cares about that. I suspect that
there's (almost) no real users of sysfs uppder_dev/lower_dev simlinks,
am i right?


Best regards.
        Alexander Y. Fomichev <>
	        +7-495-662-88-88 ext. 11346
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists