netdev - [net-next v2 09/11] i40e: fix misleading message about promisc setting on un-trusted VF

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:   Fri,  3 May 2019 16:09:37 -0700
From:   Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:     davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     Harshitha Ramamurthy <harshitha.ramamurthy@...el.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com,
        Andrew Bowers <andrewx.bowers@...el.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: [net-next v2 09/11] i40e: fix misleading message about promisc setting on un-trusted VF

From: Harshitha Ramamurthy <harshitha.ramamurthy@...el.com>

A refactor of the i40e_vc_config_promiscuous_mode_msg function moved
the check for un-trusted VF into another function. We have to lie to
an un-trusted VF that its request to set promiscuous mode is
successful even when it is not because we don't want the VF to find
out its trust status this way. With the refactor, we were running into
a case where even though we were not setting promiscuous mode for an
un-trusted VF, we still printed a misleading message that it was
successful.

This patch fixes that by ensuring that a success message is printed
on the host side only when the promiscuous mode change has been
successful.

Signed-off-by: Harshitha Ramamurthy <harshitha.ramamurthy@...el.com>
Tested-by: Andrew Bowers <andrewx.bowers@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
---
 .../ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c    | 28 +++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
index 925ca880bea3..8a6fb9c03955 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
@@ -1112,15 +1112,6 @@ static i40e_status i40e_config_vf_promiscuous_mode(struct i40e_vf *vf,
 	if (!i40e_vc_isvalid_vsi_id(vf, vsi_id) || !vsi)
 		return I40E_ERR_PARAM;
 
-	if (!test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps) &&
-	    (allmulti || alluni)) {
-		dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
-			"Unprivileged VF %d is attempting to configure promiscuous mode\n",
-			vf->vf_id);
-		/* Lie to the VF on purpose. */
-		return 0;
-	}
-
 	if (vf->port_vlan_id) {
 		aq_ret = i40e_aq_set_vsi_mc_promisc_on_vlan(hw, vsi->seid,
 							    allmulti,
@@ -1997,8 +1988,21 @@ static int i40e_vc_config_promiscuous_mode_msg(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *msg)
 	bool allmulti = false;
 	bool alluni = false;
 
-	if (!test_bit(I40E_VF_STATE_ACTIVE, &vf->vf_states))
-		return I40E_ERR_PARAM;
+	if (!test_bit(I40E_VF_STATE_ACTIVE, &vf->vf_states)) {
+		aq_ret = I40E_ERR_PARAM;
+		goto err_out;
+	}
+	if (!test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) {
+		dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
+			"Unprivileged VF %d is attempting to configure promiscuous mode\n",
+			vf->vf_id);
+
+		/* Lie to the VF on purpose, because this is an error we can
+		 * ignore. Unprivileged VF is not a virtual channel error.
+		 */
+		aq_ret = 0;
+		goto err_out;
+	}
 
 	/* Multicast promiscuous handling*/
 	if (info->flags & FLAG_VF_MULTICAST_PROMISC)
@@ -2032,7 +2036,7 @@ static int i40e_vc_config_promiscuous_mode_msg(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *msg)
 			clear_bit(I40E_VF_STATE_UC_PROMISC, &vf->vf_states);
 		}
 	}
-
+err_out:
 	/* send the response to the VF */
 	return i40e_vc_send_resp_to_vf(vf,
 				       VIRTCHNL_OP_CONFIG_PROMISCUOUS_MODE,
-- 
2.20.1