netdev - Re: [Patch net] net: saving irq context for peernet2id()

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: <CAM_iQpVJd46SQuTE3Dm8nvCdv=rUQOsmxrMB3dSOCpwQV9eOZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2016 20:53:42 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Elad Raz <e@...draz.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] net: saving irq context for peernet2id()

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:33 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:15:00 -0400
>
>> However, that's not the case is it?  Unless I missed something, the
>> fix that Cong Wang is advocating (rework the audit multicast code), is
>> a change that I have said I'm not going to accept during the -rc
>> phase.  It has been a few days now and no alternate fix has been
>> proposed, I'll give it a few more hours ...
>
> It really is the right way to fix this though.
>
> Nothing should be emitting netlink messages, potentially en-masse
> to a multicast group or broadcast, in hardware interrupt context.

+1

>
> I know it's been said that only systemd receives these things, so
> that point doesn't need to be remade again.
>
> We have many weeks until -final is released so I really don't
> understand the reluctance at a slightly more involved fix in -rc2.  In
> fact this is the most optimal time to try it this way, as we'll have
> the maximum amount of time for it to have exposure for testing before
> -final.

Exactly, this is how release candidates work and this is why Linus usually
puts 6 or 7 rc's before a final release, so that we have 6/7 weeks to fix bugs
(and bugs of bug fixes of course) from the merge window.

It is very common we have hidden bugs before a merge window, since they
were just sitting in a subsystem maintainer's tree, more testers come in after
merge window, a bug like this one is clearly a cross-subsystem one, and
-rc2 a perfect time to fix it. This is how we work for years.

Audit subsystem is in a different world with the rest of us. Sigh.