netdev - Re: [net v3] drivers/net/wan/lapbether: Use needed_headroom instead of hard_header

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: <9975370f14b8ddeafc8dec7bc6c0878a@dev.tdt.de>
Date:   Wed, 05 Aug 2020 07:23:55 +0200
From:   Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
To:     Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux X25 <linux-x25@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net v3] drivers/net/wan/lapbether: Use needed_headroom instead
 of hard_header_len

On 2020-08-04 21:20, Xie He wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:43 AM Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not an expert in the field, but after reading the commit message 
>> and
>> the previous comments, I'd say that makes sense.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> Shouldn't this kernel panic be intercepted by a skb_cow() before the
>> skb_push() in lapbeth_data_transmit()?
> 
> When a skb is passing down a protocol stack for transmission, there
> might be several different skb_push calls to prepend different
> headers. It would be the best (in terms of performance) if we can
> allocate the needed header space in advance, so that we don't need to
> reallocate the skb every time a new header needs to be prepended.

Yes, I agree.

> Adding skb_cow before these skb_push calls would indeed help
> preventing kernel panics, but that might not be the essential issue
> here, and it might also prevent us from discovering the real issue. (I
> guess this is also the reason skb_cow is not included in skb_push
> itself.)

Well, you are right that the panic is "useful" to discover the real
problem. But on the other hand, if it is possible to prevent a panic, I
think we should do so. Maybe with adding a warning, when skb_cow() needs
to reallocate memory.

But this is getting a little bit off topic. For this patch I can say:

LGTM.

Reviewed-by: Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>