netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices

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: <CACT4Y+brat=HBcptYy_=13ny40TuM=Y2XNUXja_zH4Z1Mwen4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 18:34:05 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+c3ea30e1e2485573f953@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 3:12 PM Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On 3/2/20 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
> > Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:45:41 +0100
> >
> >> I don't know yet whether it makes sense to have CAN bonding/team
> >> devices. But if so we would need some more investigation. For now
> >> disabling CAN interfaces for bonding/team devices seems to be
> >> reasonable.
> >
> > Every single interesting device that falls into a special use case
> > like CAN is going to be tempted to add a similar check.
> >
> > I don't want to set this precedence.
> >
> > Check that the devices you get passed are actually CAN devices, it's
> > easy, just compare the netdev_ops and make sure they equal the CAN
> > ones.
>
> Sorry, I'm not really sure how to implement this check.
>
> Should I maintain a list of all netdev_ops of all the CAN devices (=
> whitelist) and the compare against that list? Having a global list of
> pointers to network devices remind me of the old days of kernel-2.4.

I think Dave means something like this:

$ grep "netdev_ops == " drivers/net/*/*.c net/*/*.c
drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c: if (event_dev->netdev_ops == &device_ops)
drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c: if (dev->netdev_ops == &ppp_netdev_ops)
net/dsa/slave.c: return dev->netdev_ops == &dsa_slave_netdev_ops;
net/openvswitch/vport-internal_dev.c: return netdev->netdev_ops ==
&internal_dev_netdev_ops;