netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: avoid adding slave device with IFF

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bf84fc7b-8829-420a-3aca-00a378921f61@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:52:13 +0200
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
        zhudi <zhudi21@...wei.com>
Cc:     vfalico@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, rose.chen@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: avoid adding slave device with IFF_MASTER flag



On 6/22/21 8:16 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> zhudi <zhudi21@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Di Zhu <zhudi21@...wei.com>
>>
>> The following steps will definitely cause the kernel to crash:
>> 	ip link add vrf1 type vrf table 1
>> 	modprobe bonding.ko max_bonds=1
>> 	echo "+vrf1" >/sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves
>> 	rmmod bonding
>>
>> The root cause is that: When the VRF is added to the slave device,
>> it will fail, and some cleaning work will be done. because VRF device
>> has IFF_MASTER flag, cleanup process  will not clear the IFF_BONDING flag.
>> Then, when we unload the bonding module, unregister_netdevice_notifier()
>> will treat the VRF device as a bond master device and treat netdev_priv()
>> as struct bonding{} which actually is struct net_vrf{}.
>>
>> By analyzing the processing logic of bond_enslave(), it seems that
>> it is not allowed to add the slave device with the IFF_MASTER flag, so
>> we need to add a code check for this situation.
> 
> 	I don't believe the statement just above is correct; nesting
> bonds has historically been permitted, even if it is of questionable
> value these days.  I've not tested nesting in a while, but last I recall
> it did function.
> 
> 	Leaving aside the question of whether it's really useful to nest
> bonds or not, my concern with disabling this is that it will break
> existing configurations that currently work fine.
> 
> 	However, it should be possible to use netif_is_bonding_master
> (which tests dev->flags & IFF_MASTER and dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING)
> to exclude IFF_MASTER devices that are not bonds (which seem to be vrf
> and eql), e.g.,
> 
> 	if ((slave_dev->flags & IFF_MASTER) &&
> 		!netif_is_bond_master(slave_dev))
> 
> 	Or we can just go with this patch and see if anything breaks.
> 

syzbot for sure will stop finding stack overflows and other issues like that :)

I know that some people used nested bonding devices in order to implement complex qdisc setups.
(eg HTB on the first level, netem on the second level).