netdev - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 net-next] xen-netback: add support for multicast control

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]

Message-ID: <1441272682.26292.309.camel@citrix.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:31:22 +0100
From:	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
To:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 net-next] xen-netback: add support for
 multicast control

On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 10:00 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@...e.com]
> > Sent: 03 September 2015 09:57
> > To: Paul Durrant
> > Cc: Ian Campbell; Wei Liu; xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org;
> > netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 net-next] xen-netback: add support 
> > for
> > multicast control
> > 
> > > > > On 02.09.15 at 18:58, <paul.durrant@...rix.com> wrote:
> > > @@ -1215,6 +1289,31 @@ static void xenvif_tx_build_gops(struct
> > xenvif_queue *queue,
> > >  				break;
> > >  		}
> > > 
> > > +		if (extras[XEN_NETIF_EXTRA_TYPE_MCAST_ADD - 1].type) 
> > > {
> > > +			struct xen_netif_extra_info *extra;
> > > +
> > > +			extra =
> > &extras[XEN_NETIF_EXTRA_TYPE_MCAST_ADD - 1];
> > > +			ret = xenvif_mcast_add(queue->vif, extra-
> > > u.mcast.addr);
> > 
> > What's the reason this call isn't gated on vif->multicast_control?
> > 
> 
> No particular reason. I guess it eats a small amount of memory for no 
> gain but a well behaved frontend wouldn't send such a request and a 
> malicious one can only send 64 of them before netback starts to reject 
> them.

Perhaps a confused guest might submit them thinking they would work when
actually the feature hasn't been properly negotiated and since it would
succeed it wouldn't generate an error on the guest side?

(A bit of a niche corner case I confess...)
--
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