netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net/sched: act

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: <20210601123510.GA3940@builder>
Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 15:35:10 +0300
From:   Boris Sukholitko <boris.sukholitko@...adcom.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        Ilya Lifshits <ilya.lifshits@...adcom.com>,
        Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>,
        Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net/sched: act_vlan: No dump for unset
 priority

Hi Jacub,

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:21:36PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2021 14:40:51 +0300 Boris Sukholitko wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/sched/act_vlan.c b/net/sched/act_vlan.c
> > index a108469c664f..ccd1acfa4c55 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/act_vlan.c
> > +++ b/net/sched/act_vlan.c
> > @@ -307,8 +307,8 @@ static int tcf_vlan_dump(struct sk_buff *skb, struct tc_action *a,
> >  	    (nla_put_u16(skb, TCA_VLAN_PUSH_VLAN_ID, p->tcfv_push_vid) ||
> >  	     nla_put_be16(skb, TCA_VLAN_PUSH_VLAN_PROTOCOL,
> >  			  p->tcfv_push_proto) ||
> > -	     (nla_put_u8(skb, TCA_VLAN_PUSH_VLAN_PRIORITY,
> > -					      p->tcfv_push_prio))))
> > +	     (p->tcfv_push_prio_exists &&
> > +	      nla_put_u8(skb, TCA_VLAN_PUSH_VLAN_PRIORITY, p->tcfv_push_prio))))
> >  		goto nla_put_failure;
> >  
> >  	if (p->tcfv_action == TCA_VLAN_ACT_PUSH_ETH) {
> > @@ -362,10 +362,19 @@ static int tcf_vlan_search(struct net *net, struct tc_action **a, u32 index)
> >  
> >  static size_t tcf_vlan_get_fill_size(const struct tc_action *act)
> >  {
> > -	return nla_total_size(sizeof(struct tc_vlan))
> > +	struct tcf_vlan *v = to_vlan(act);
> > +	struct tcf_vlan_params *p;
> > +	size_t ret = nla_total_size(sizeof(struct tc_vlan))
> >  		+ nla_total_size(sizeof(u16)) /* TCA_VLAN_PUSH_VLAN_ID */
> > -		+ nla_total_size(sizeof(u16)) /* TCA_VLAN_PUSH_VLAN_PROTOCOL */
> > -		+ nla_total_size(sizeof(u8)); /* TCA_VLAN_PUSH_VLAN_PRIORITY */
> > +		+ nla_total_size(sizeof(u16)); /* TCA_VLAN_PUSH_VLAN_PROTOCOL */
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_bh(&v->tcf_lock);
> > +	p = rcu_dereference_protected(v->vlan_p, lockdep_is_held(&v->tcf_lock));
> > +	if (p->tcfv_push_prio_exists)
> > +		ret += nla_total_size(sizeof(u8)); /* TCA_VLAN_PUSH_VLAN_PRIORITY */
> > +	spin_unlock_bh(&v->tcf_lock);
> 
> This jumps out a little bit - if we need to take this lock to inspect
> tcf_vlan_params, then I infer its value may change. And if it may
> change what guarantees it doesn't change between calculating the skb
> length and dumping?
> 
> It's common practice to calculate the max skb len required when
> attributes are this small.
> 

I believe you are right.

I've just sent out v4 of the patch with tcf_vlan_get_fill_size change
reverted.

Thanks,
Boris.

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4221 bytes)