netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 02/20] vrf: Move fib6_table into net

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]

Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:08:32 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     dsahern@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, idosch@...sch.org,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
        weiwan@...gle.com, kafai@...com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 02/20] vrf: Move fib6_table into net_vrf

From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 11:47:12 -0800

> A later patch removes rt6i_table from rt6_info. Save the ipv6
> table for a VRF in net_vrf. fib tables can not be deleted so
> no reference counting or locking is required.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>

Is this change really OK all by itself?

Sure, you fix up the vrf code operating on such 'rt6' objects to
not dereference the ->rt6i_table.

But any other code whatsoever that looks at this rt6 object (dumping,
other operations in the ipv6 stack data or control plane, etc.) can
legitimately expect always to see a non-NULL value here.

I really don't see how this can be OK and leave your patch series
properly bisectable.

Thanks.