netdev - Re: [PATCH net v4 00/12] net: fix nested device bugs

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:   Tue, 01 Oct 2019 09:39:07 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        sd@...asysnail.net, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, manishc@...vell.com, rahulv@...vell.com,
        kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        sashal@...nel.org, hare@...e.de, varun@...lsio.com,
        ubraun@...ux.ibm.com, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
        Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
        Cody Schuffelen <schuffelen@...gle.com>, bjorn@...k.no
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 00/12] net: fix nested device bugs

On Sun, 2019-09-29 at 17:31 +0900, Taehee Yoo wrote:

> virt_wifi case is a little bit different case.

Well, arguably, it was also just missing this - it just looks different
:)

> I add the last patch that is to fix refcnt leaks in the virt_wifi module.
> The way to fix this is to add notifier routine.
> The notifier routine could delete lower device before deleting
> virt_wifi device.
> If virt_wifi devices are nested, notifier would work recursively.
> At that time, it would make stack memory overflow.
> 
> Actually, before this patch, virt_wifi doesn't have the same problem.
> So, I will update a comment in a v5 patch.

OK, sure.

> Many other devices use this way to avoid wrong nesting configuration.
> And I think it's a good way.
> But we should think about the below configuration.
> 
> vlan5
>    |
> virt_wifi4
>    |
> vlan3
>    |
> virt_wifi2
>    |
> vlan1
>    |
> dummy0
> 
> That code wouldn't avoid this configuration.
> And all devices couldn't avoid this config.

Good point, so then really that isn't useful to check - most people
won't try to set it up that way (since it's completely useless) and if
they do anyway too much nesting would be caught by your patchset here.

> I have been considering this case, but I couldn't make a decision yet.
> Maybe common netdev function is needed to find the same device type
>  in their graph.

I don't think it's worthwhile just to prevent somebody from making a
configuration that we think now is nonsense. Perhaps they do have some
kind of useful use-case for it ...

> This is a little bit different question for you.
> I found another bug in virt_wifi after my last patch.
> Please test below commands
>     ip link add dummy0 type dummy
>     ip link add vw1 link dummy0 type virt_wifi
>     ip link add vw2 link vw1 type virt_wifi
>     modprobe -rv virt_wifi
> 
> Then, you can see the warning messages.
> If SET_NETDEV_DEV() is deleted in the virt_wifi_newlink(),
> you can avoid that warning message.
> But I'm not sure about it's safe to remove that.
> I would really appreciate it if you let me know about that.

Hmm, I don't see any warnings. SET_NETDEV_DEV() should be there though.
Do you see the same if you stack it with something else inbetween? If
not, I guess preventing virt_wifi from stacking on top of itself would
be sufficient ...

johannes