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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:38:16 +0400 From: "Alexander Y. Fomichev" <git.user@...il.com> To: netdev@...r.kernel.org 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 warnings: [ 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 '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.4/0000:05:00.0/net/eth1/upper_eth1' [ 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 netdev_adjacent_sysfs_del,netdev_adjacent_sysfs_add netdev_adjacent_rename_links,dev_change_name 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: /sys/devices/virtual/net/eth1/lower_eth1 -> ../../../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 <Aleksandr.Fomichev@...ru> +7-495-662-88-88 ext. 11346 -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists