netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bareudp: Fixed bareudp receive handling

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, 10 Mar 2020 10:28:40 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Martin Varghese <martinvarghesenokia@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        martin.varghese@...ia.com, Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bareudp: Fixed bareudp receive handling



On 3/10/20 10:02 AM, Martin Varghese wrote:
> From: Martin Varghese <martin.varghese@...ia.com>
> 
> Reverted commit "2baecda bareudp: remove unnecessary udp_encap_enable() in
> bareudp_socket_create()"
> 
> An explicit call to udp_encap_enable is needed as the setup_udp_tunnel_sock
> does not call udp_encap_enable if the if the socket is of type v6.
> 
> Bareudp device uses v6 socket to receive v4 & v6 traffic
> 
> Signed-off-by: Martin Varghese <martin.varghese@...ia.com>
> Fixes: 2baecda37f4e ("bareudp: remove unnecessary udp_encap_enable() in bareudp_socket_create()")

Please CC the author of recent patches, do not hide,
and to be clear, it is not about blaming, just information.

> ---
>  drivers/net/bareudp.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bareudp.c b/drivers/net/bareudp.c
> index 71a2f48..c9d0d68 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bareudp.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bareudp.c
> @@ -250,6 +250,9 @@ static int bareudp_socket_create(struct bareudp_dev *bareudp, __be16 port)
>  	tunnel_cfg.encap_destroy = NULL;
>  	setup_udp_tunnel_sock(bareudp->net, sock, &tunnel_cfg);
>  

This might need a comment. 

Can this condition be false ?

According to your changelog, it seems not.

Give to reviewers more chance to avoid future mistakes.

Thanks.

> +	if (sock->sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
> +		udp_encap_enable();
> +
>  	rcu_assign_pointer(bareudp->sock, sock);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>