netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/3] taprio: Fix kernel panic in taprio

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: <87a7btqmk7.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:31:04 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, jhs@...atatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, davem@...emloft.net,
        vedang.patel@...el.com, leandro.maciel.dorileo@...el.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/3] taprio: Fix kernel panic in taprio_destroy

Hi,

Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> writes:

> taprio_init may fail earlier than this line:
>
> 	list_add(&q->taprio_list, &taprio_list);
>
> i.e. due to the net device not being multi queue.

Good catch.

>
> Attempting to remove q from the global taprio_list when it is not part
> of it will result in a kernel panic.
>
> Fix it by iterating through the list and removing it only if found.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
> ---
>  net/sched/sch_taprio.c | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> index 540bde009ea5..f1eea8c68011 100644
> --- a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> +++ b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> @@ -1199,12 +1199,17 @@ static int taprio_change(struct Qdisc *sch, struct nlattr *opt,
>  
>  static void taprio_destroy(struct Qdisc *sch)
>  {
> -	struct taprio_sched *q = qdisc_priv(sch);
> +	struct taprio_sched *p, *q = qdisc_priv(sch);
>  	struct net_device *dev = qdisc_dev(sch);
> +	struct list_head *pos, *tmp;
>  	unsigned int i;
>  
>  	spin_lock(&taprio_list_lock);
> -	list_del(&q->taprio_list);
> +	list_for_each_safe(pos, tmp, &taprio_list) {
> +		p = list_entry(pos, struct taprio_sched, taprio_list);
> +		if (p == q)
> +			list_del(&q->taprio_list);
> +	}

Personally, I would do things differently, I am thinking: adding the
taprio instance earlier to the list in taprio_init(), and keeping
taprio_destroy() the way it is now. But take this more as a suggestion
:-)


Cheers,
--
Vinicius