netdev - Re: [net PATCH] net: sched: Fix one possible panic when no destroy callback

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_iQpUx8d_vQT=1d06Ah-d+E5R_10pnvcy4Y9ac_=txanPBOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:08:02 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     gfree.wind@....163.com, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net PATCH] net: sched: Fix one possible panic when no destroy callback

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 09:30 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 6:35 PM,  <gfree.wind@....163.com> wrote:
>> > From: Gao Feng <gfree.wind@....163.com>
>> >
>> > When qdisc fail to init, qdisc_create would invoke the destroy callback
>> > to cleanup. But there is no check if the callback exists really. So it
>> > would cause the panic if there is no real destroy callback like these
>> > qdisc codel, pfifo, pfifo_fast, and so on.
>> >
>> > Now add one the check for destroy to avoid the possible panic.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <gfree.wind@....163.com>
>>
>> Looks good,
>>
>> Acked-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
>>
>> This is introduced by commit 87b60cfacf9f17cf71933c6e33b.
>> Please add proper Fixes tag next time.
>
> Given that pfifo, pfifo_fast or codel can not fail their init,


How about codel_init() -> codel_change() -> nla_parse_nested() ?


> I do not see this patch as a net candidate, and the Fixes: tag seems not
> needed.


True, but we add Fixes tag to net-next candidates too.