netdev - Re: [PATCH net] datagram: When peeking datagrams with offset

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:   Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:20:22 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Matthew Dawson <matthew@...systems.ca>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Macieira, Thiago" <thiago.macieira@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] datagram: When peeking datagrams with offset < 0
 don't skip empty skbs

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 11:18 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > If I read the above correctly, you are arguining in favor of the
> > addittional flag version, right?
> 
> I was. Though if we are going to thread the argument from the caller
> to __skb_try_recv_from_queue to avoid rereading sk->sk_peek_off,
> on second thought it might be simpler to do it through off:
[...]
> This, of course, requires restricting sk_peek_off to protect against overflow.

Ok, even if I'm not 100% sure overall this will be simpler when adding
also the overflow check.

> If I'm not mistaken, the test in udp_recvmsg currently incorrectly sets
> peeking to false when peeking at offset zero:
> 
>         peeking = off = sk_peek_offset(sk, flags);

I think you are right, does not look correct.

> > --- a/net/core/sock.c
> > +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> > @@ -2408,9 +2408,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__sk_mem_reclaim);
> > 
> >  int sk_set_peek_off(struct sock *sk, int val)
> >  {
> > -       if (val < 0)
> > -               return -EINVAL;
> > -
> > +       /* a negative value will disable peeking with offset */
> >         sk->sk_peek_off = val;
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> 
> Separate patch to net-next?

Agreed.

Paolo