netdev - Re: [PATCH net] sctp: use __GFP_NOWARN for sctpw.fifo allocation

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: <CADvbK_f_q-gJHey9oUZUrxyGSYXasMVj0kqvhEkzDUPsGDzeng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 6 Aug 2017 18:14:39 +1200
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        davem <davem@...emloft.net>, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: use __GFP_NOWARN for sctpw.fifo allocation

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 08:31:09PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
>> Chen Wei found a kernel call trace when modprobe sctp_probe with
>> bufsize set with a huge value.
>>
>> It's because in sctpprobe_init when alloc memory for sctpw.fifo,
>> the size is got from userspace. If it is too large, kernel will
>> fail and give a warning.
>
> Yes but sctp_probe can only be loaded by an admin and it would happen
> only during modprobe. It's different from the commit mentioned below, on
> which any user could trigger it.
yeah, in this way it's different, I think generally it's acceptable to have
this kinda warning call trace by admin.

But it could get the feedback from the return value and the warning
call trace seems not useful. sometimes users may be confused
with this call trace. So it may be better not to dump the warning ?

Or you think it can be helpful if we leave it here ?

>
>>
>> As there will be a fallback allocation later, this patch is just
>> to fail silently and return ret, just as commit 0ccc22f425e5
>> ("sit: use __GFP_NOWARN for user controlled allocation") did.
>>
>> Reported-by: Chen Wei <weichen@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  net/sctp/probe.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sctp/probe.c b/net/sctp/probe.c
>> index 6cc2152..5bf3164 100644
>> --- a/net/sctp/probe.c
>> +++ b/net/sctp/probe.c
>> @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static __init int sctpprobe_init(void)
>>
>>       init_waitqueue_head(&sctpw.wait);
>>       spin_lock_init(&sctpw.lock);
>> -     if (kfifo_alloc(&sctpw.fifo, bufsize, GFP_KERNEL))
>> +     if (kfifo_alloc(&sctpw.fifo, bufsize, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN))
>>               return ret;
>>
>>       if (!proc_create(procname, S_IRUSR, init_net.proc_net,
>> --
>> 2.1.0
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>