netdev - Re: [Patch net] net: fix a potential recursive NETDEV_FEAT

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: <CAM_iQpUA_wcmo+d0jcb=G4WiQimJ3FcBiyx2H1fjQm9Xv8gSGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 11:49:12 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+e73ceacfd8560cc8a3ca@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        syzbot+c2fb6f9ddcea95ba49b5@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] net: fix a potential recursive NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:46 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 3:42 PM Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com> wrote:
> >
> > Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > >syzbot managed to trigger a recursive NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE event
> > >between bonding master and slave. I managed to find a reproducer
> > >for this:
> > >
> > >  ip li set bond0 up
> > >  ifenslave bond0 eth0
> > >  brctl addbr br0
> > >  ethtool -K eth0 lro off
> > >  brctl addif br0 bond0
> > >  ip li set br0 up
> >
> >         Presumably this is tied to the LRO feature being special in
> > netdev_sync_lower_features (via NETIF_F_UPPER_DISABLES), but why doesn't
> > LRO become disabled and stop the recursion once the test
> >
> >                 if (!(features & feature) && (lower->features & feature)) {
> >
> >         no longer evalutes to true (in theory)?
>
> Good point!
>
> Actually the LRO feature fails to disable:
>
> [   62.559537] netdevice: bond0: failed to disable 0x0000000000008000 on eth0!
> ...
> [   78.312003] netdevice: eth0: failed to disable LRO!
>
> It seems we should only skip netdev_update_features() for such case,
> like below. Note __netdev_update_features() intentionally returns -1
> for this failure, so I am afraid we just have to live with it.

Oops, I meant netdev_features_change() of course.