netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 05/11] tcp, ulp: Add clone operation to tcp_ulp

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:26:06 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, mptcp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 05/11] tcp, ulp: Add clone operation to
 tcp_ulp_ops



On 12/20/19 8:21 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 07:26 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> On 12/19/19 2:34 PM, Mat Martineau wrote:
>>> If ULP is used on a listening socket, icsk_ulp_ops and icsk_ulp_data are
>>> copied when the listener is cloned. Sometimes the clone is immediately
>>> deleted, which will invoke the release op on the clone and likely
>>> corrupt the listening socket's icsk_ulp_data.
>>>
>>> The clone operation is invoked immediately after the clone is copied and
>>> gives the ULP type an opportunity to set up the clone socket and its
>>> icsk_ulp_data.
>>>
>>
>> Since the method is void, this means no error can happen.
>>
>> For example we do not intend to attempt a memory allocation ?
> 
> if the MPTCP ULP clone fails, we fallback to plain TCP (the 'is_mptcp'
> flag cleared on the tcp 'struct sock'), so we don't have an error
> return code there.
> 
> If we change the 'clone' signature, than the only in-kernel user will
> always return 0, would that be ok?

I guess you could simply add more comments in the changelog for the time being.

I was trying to make sure we would not have later another patch changing
the signature.