netdev - Re: [PATCH] [bonding]: clear header

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:	Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:56:22 +0800
From:	Wengang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [bonding]: clear header_ops when last slave detached

Hi Jay,

于 2014年11月18日 09:38, Jay Vosburgh 写道:
> Wengang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could anybody please review this patch?
> 	I don't see that the original of this ever came through netdev.

Oh, that' bad. I sent this to netdev@...r.kernel.org. The mail address 
is wrong?

>> thanks,
>> wengang
>>
>> 于 2014年11月13日 10:19, Wengang Wang 写道:
>>> When last slave of a bonding master is removed, the bonding then does not work.
>>> When packet_snd is called against with a master net_device, it accesses
>>> header_ops. In case the header_ops is not valid any longer(say module unloaded)
>>> it will then access an invalid memory address.
>>> This patch try to fix this issue by clearing header_ops when last slave
>>> detached.
> 	Am I correct in presuming that this behavior is limited to ipoib
> slaves only?  I don't see that this could occur with ethernet slaves, as
> eth_header_ops isn't part of a module.  This needs to be mentioned in
> the commit log.
Yes, the problem is found with ipoib slaves.
>>> Signed-off-by: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 2 ++
>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>> index c9ac06c..84a34fc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>> @@ -1728,6 +1728,8 @@ static int __bond_release_one(struct net_device *bond_dev,
>>>    	unblock_netpoll_tx();
>>>    	synchronize_rcu();
>>>    	bond->slave_cnt--;
>>> +	if (!bond->slave_cnt)
>>> +		bond->dev->header_ops = NULL;
>>>      	if (!bond_has_slaves(bond)) {
>>>    		call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGEADDR, bond->dev);
> 	I believe your addition could be moved into the block for the
> next if, as "!bond->slave_cnt" is essentially "!bond_has_slaves()".

Yes, Agree.
I will send the second prompt soon with commit message mentioning ipoib.

thanks,
wengang

> 	-J
>
> ---
> 	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com

--
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