netdev - Re: [PATCH,v2,net-next 2/2] tun: enable napi_gro

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+DcSEidWRHa1ovXfPOfG3OwQ=NASMt9NbTGpk=-NdC8BJQKhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:48:00 -0700
From:   Petar Penkov <peterpenkov96@...il.com>
To:     Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) 
        <maheshb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Petar Bozhidarov Penkov <ppenkov@...nford.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH,v2,net-next 2/2] tun: enable napi_gro_frags() for TUN/TAP driver

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)
<maheshb@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -2061,6 +2174,9 @@ static int tun_set_iff(struct net *net, struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
>>>         if (tfile->detached)
>>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> +       if ((ifr->ifr_flags & IFF_NAPI_FRAGS) && !capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
>>> +               return -EPERM;
>>> +
>>
>> This should perhaps be moved into the !dev branch, directly below the
>> ns_capable check.
>>
> Hmm, does that mean fail only on creation but allow to attach if
> exists? That would be wrong, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong but we
> want to prevent both these scenarios if user does not have sufficient
> privileges (i.e. NET_ADMIN in init-ns).
>
My understanding is we want to protect both scenarios.
>>>         dev = __dev_get_by_name(net, ifr->ifr_name);
>>>         if (dev) {
>>>                 if (ifr->ifr_flags & IFF_TUN_EXCL)
>>> @@ -2185,6 +2301,9 @@ static int tun_set_iff(struct net *net, struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
>>>         tun->flags = (tun->flags & ~TUN_FEATURES) |
>>>                 (ifr->ifr_flags & TUN_FEATURES);
>>>
>>> +       if (!(tun->flags & IFF_NAPI) || (tun->flags & TUN_TYPE_MASK) != IFF_TAP)
>>> +               tun->flags = tun->flags & ~IFF_NAPI_FRAGS;
>>> +
>>
>> Similarly, this check only need to be performed in that branch.
>> Instead of reverting to non-frags mode, a tun_set_iff with the wrong
>> set of flags should probably fail hard.
> Yes, agree, wrong set of flags should fail hard and probably be done
> before attach or open, no?
Agreed, in v3 I will push this check before the conditional so both
branches can be rejected with EINVAL.