netdev - Re: [PATCH] xen-netback: correct success/error reporting for the SKB-with-fraglist case

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: <17e50fb5-31f7-60a5-1eec-10d18a40ad9a@xen.org>
Date:   Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:11:11 +0000
From:   Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@...il.com>
To:     Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Cc:     "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wei Liu <wl@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-netback: correct success/error reporting for the
 SKB-with-fraglist case

On 25/02/2021 07:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 24.02.2021 17:39, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> On 23/02/2021 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> When re-entering the main loop of xenvif_tx_check_gop() a 2nd time, the
>>> special considerations for the head of the SKB no longer apply. Don't
>>> mistakenly report ERROR to the frontend for the first entry in the list,
>>> even if - from all I can tell - this shouldn't matter much as the overall
>>> transmit will need to be considered failed anyway.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
>>>
>>> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
>>> @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ check_frags:
>>>    				 * the header's copy failed, and they are
>>>    				 * sharing a slot, send an error
>>>    				 */
>>> -				if (i == 0 && sharedslot)
>>> +				if (i == 0 && !first_shinfo && sharedslot)
>>>    					xenvif_idx_release(queue, pending_idx,
>>>    							   XEN_NETIF_RSP_ERROR);
>>>    				else
>>>
>>
>> I think this will DTRT, but to my mind it would make more sense to clear
>> 'sharedslot' before the 'goto check_frags' at the bottom of the function.
> 
> That was my initial idea as well, but
> - I think it is for a reason that the variable is "const".
> - There is another use of it which would then instead need further
>    amending (and which I believe is at least part of the reason for
>    the variable to be "const").
> 

Oh, yes. But now that I look again, don't you want:

if (i == 0 && first_shinfo && sharedslot)

? (i.e no '!')

The comment states that the error should be indicated when the first 
frag contains the header in the case that the map succeeded but the 
prior copy from the same ref failed. This can only possibly be the case 
if this is the 'first_shinfo' (which is why I still think it is safe to 
unconst 'sharedslot' and clear it).

   Paul


> Jan
>