netdev - Re: Minimum MTU Mess

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: <20160907203112.GA26445@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 22:31:12 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Minimum MTU Mess

Hi Jarod

> -	/*	MTU must be positive.	 */
> -	if (new_mtu < 0)
> +	if (new_mtu < dev->min_mtu) {
> +		netdev_err(dev, "Invalid MTU %d requested, hw min %d\n",
> +			   new_mtu, dev->min_mtu);
>  		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (new_mtu > dev->max_mtu) {
> +		netdev_err(dev, "Invalid MTU %d requested, hw max %d\n",
> +			   new_mtu, dev->min_mtu);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

I doubt you can make such a big change like this in one go. Can you
really guarantee all interfaces, of what ever type, will have some
value for dev->min_mtu and dev->max_mtu? What may fly is something
more like:

> +	if (dev->max_mtu && new_mtu > dev->max_mtu) {
> +		netdev_err(dev, "Invalid MTU %d requested, hw max %d\n",
> +			   new_mtu, dev->min_mtu);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

Maybe in a few cycles you can add a WARN_ON(!dev->max_mtu), and a few
cycles after that go with (new_mtu > dev->max_mtu).

  Andrew