netdev - RE: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] liquidio: avoid vm low memory crashes

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: <CY1PR07MB26658DEEECB90656C84658EAECA10@CY1PR07MB2665.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:08:49 +0000
From:   Ricardo Farrington <Ricardo.Farrington@...ium.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "Manlunas, Felix" <Felix.Manlunas@...ium.com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Vatsavayi, Raghu" <Raghu.Vatsavayi@...ium.com>,
        "Chickles, Derek" <Derek.Chickles@...ium.com>,
        "Burla, Satananda" <Satananda.Burla@...ium.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] liquidio: avoid vm low memory crashes

My apologies Leon - I did not infer that the subject line should have been changed from your previous correspondence.  I will correct it.

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Romanovsky [mailto:leon@...nel.org] 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:23 PM
To: Manlunas, Felix <Felix.Manlunas@...ium.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Vatsavayi, Raghu <Raghu.Vatsavayi@...ium.com>; Chickles, Derek <Derek.Chickles@...ium.com>; Burla, Satananda <Satananda.Burla@...ium.com>; Ricardo Farrington <Ricardo.Farrington@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/3] liquidio: avoid vm low memory crashes

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:49:20PM -0700, Felix Manlunas wrote:
> From: Rick Farrington <ricardo.farrington@...ium.com>
>
> This patchset addresses issues brought about by low memory conditions 
> in a VM.  These conditions were not seen when the driver was exercised 
> normally.  Rather, they were brought about through manual fault injection.
> They are being included in the interest of hardening the driver 
> against unforeseen circumstances.
>
> 1. Fix GPF in octeon_init_droq(); zero the allocated block 'recv_buf_list'.
>    This prevents a GPF trying to access an invalid 'recv_buf_list[i]' entry
>    in octeon_droq_destroy_ring_buffers() if init didn't alloc all entries.
> 2. Don't dereference a NULL ptr in octeon_droq_destroy_ring_buffers().
> 3. For defensive programming, zero the allocated block 'oct->droq[0]' in
>    octeon_setup_output_queues() and 'oct->instr_queue[0]' in
>    octeon_setup_instr_queues().
>
> change log:
> V1 -> V2:
> 1. Corrected syntax in 'Subject' lines; no functional or code changes.
>
> Rick Farrington (3):
>   liquidio: lowmem: init allocated memory to 0
>   liquidio: lowmem: do not dereference null ptr
>   liquidio: lowmem: init allocated memory to 0

I'm feeling déjà vu here. We already discussed that zero allocated arrays have nothing to do with low memory conditions. Why are you continuing to use this misleading term here?

>
>  drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/octeon_device.c | 8 ++++----
>  drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/octeon_droq.c   | 6 ++++--
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.9.0
>