netdev - Re: [PATCH net] dsa: fix promiscuity leak on slave dev open error

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:	Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:09:53 +0200
From:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Cc:	Gilad Ben-Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] dsa: fix promiscuity leak on slave dev open error

> It has occurred to me that dev_set_promiscuity() and its brethren
> dev_set_allmulti() may not be the best of interfaces:
> 
> - On cursory inspection of code using these function their name
> implies the value of the relevant counter is set to the value passed
> as parameter, not incremented by it.
> - No caller I've managed to spot passes anything but -1 or 1
> 
> It seems an interface of
> 
> int dev_set_promiscuity(struct net_device *dev, bool on);
> 
> int dev_set_allmulti(struct net_device *dev, bool on);

on suggests it is an absolute, when in fact you are passing an
increment, so i don't think it is much of an improvement.

Adding #define, PROMISC_INC and PROMISC_DEC might be clearer, and
since this is not a fast path, you could consider parameter
validation. Or dev_get_promiscuity(), det_put_promiscuity().
 
> would be as functional (for current users), more readable and less
> error prone but I am not sure such a tiny problem (if you can call
> this a problem) is worth the churn...

There was only one instance of it wrong, so it is not a very big
problem. I would say it is not worth the churn.

	 Andrew
--
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