netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] udp: avoid a cache miss on dequeue

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:   Thu, 01 Jun 2017 13:50:48 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] udp: avoid a cache miss on dequeue

On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 22:35 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:

> To make the code robust we would have to NULL all the other fields
> (nfct, nf_bridge, destructor, sk) that are currently not cleared in
> skb_release_head_state(), elsewhere if one day, after some change, any
> that fields become non-NULL in this code path we risk a double-free
> after skb_release_head_state(), even if the code looks safe.

Well, one can not predict future bugs, and we should not add code just
trying to prevent future bugs.

> 
> Will that be a little too invasive for this small use-case? Can't we
> prefer a new helper or simply a secpath_reset() plus some appropriate
> comments?

Please reuse existing functions, and amend them if needed.

Fact that we mention secpath_put() or secpath_reset() in an UDP patch
should really tell us something is wrong. This is becoming a maintenance
burden.