netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] net: dsa: ensure linearized SKBs in case of tail taggers

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: <20210721233549.mhqlrt3l2bbyaawr@skbuf>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jul 2021 02:35:49 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>
Cc:     woojung.huh@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] net: dsa: ensure linearized SKBs in case of tail
 taggers

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:56:41PM +0200, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> The function skb_put() that is used by tail taggers to make room for the
> DSA tag must only be called for linearized SKBS. However in case that the
> slave device inherited features like NETIF_F_HW_SG or NETIF_F_FRAGLIST the
> SKB passed to the slaves transmit function may not be linearized.
> Avoid those SKBs by clearing the NETIF_F_HW_SG and NETIF_F_FRAGLIST flags
> for tail taggers.
> Furthermore since the tagging protocol can be changed at runtime move the
> code for setting up the slaves features into dsa_slave_setup_tagger().
> 
> Suggested-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>
> ---
>  net/dsa/slave.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> index 22ce11cd770e..ae2a648ed9be 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> @@ -1808,6 +1808,7 @@ void dsa_slave_setup_tagger(struct net_device *slave)
>  	struct dsa_slave_priv *p = netdev_priv(slave);
>  	const struct dsa_port *cpu_dp = dp->cpu_dp;
>  	struct net_device *master = cpu_dp->master;
> +	const struct dsa_switch *ds = dp->ds;
>  
>  	slave->needed_headroom = cpu_dp->tag_ops->needed_headroom;
>  	slave->needed_tailroom = cpu_dp->tag_ops->needed_tailroom;
> @@ -1819,6 +1820,14 @@ void dsa_slave_setup_tagger(struct net_device *slave)
>  	slave->needed_tailroom += master->needed_tailroom;
>  
>  	p->xmit = cpu_dp->tag_ops->xmit;
> +
> +	slave->features = master->vlan_features | NETIF_F_HW_TC;
> +	if (ds->ops->port_vlan_add && ds->ops->port_vlan_del)
> +		slave->features |= NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_FILTER;
> +	slave->hw_features |= NETIF_F_HW_TC;
> +	slave->features |= NETIF_F_LLTX;
> +	if (slave->needed_tailroom)
> +		slave->features &= ~(NETIF_F_SG | NETIF_F_FRAGLIST);
>  }
>  
>  static struct lock_class_key dsa_slave_netdev_xmit_lock_key;
> @@ -1881,11 +1890,6 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
>  	if (slave_dev == NULL)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	slave_dev->features = master->vlan_features | NETIF_F_HW_TC;
> -	if (ds->ops->port_vlan_add && ds->ops->port_vlan_del)
> -		slave_dev->features |= NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_FILTER;
> -	slave_dev->hw_features |= NETIF_F_HW_TC;
> -	slave_dev->features |= NETIF_F_LLTX;
>  	slave_dev->ethtool_ops = &dsa_slave_ethtool_ops;
>  	if (!is_zero_ether_addr(port->mac))
>  		ether_addr_copy(slave_dev->dev_addr, port->mac);
> -- 
> 2.32.0
> 

I would have probably changed the code in dsa_slave_create just like
this:

-	slave->features = master->vlan_features | NETIF_F_HW_TC;
+	slave->features = NETIF_F_HW_TC;
...
-	slave_dev->vlan_features = master->vlan_features;

and in dsa_slave_setup_tagger:

+	vlan_features = master->vlan_features;
+	slave->features &= ~vlan_features;
+	if (slave->needed_tailroom)
+		vlan_features &= ~(NETIF_F_SG | NETIF_F_FRAGLIST);
+	slave->features |= vlan_features;
+	slave->vlan_features = vlan_features;

no need to move around NETIF_F_HW_TC and NETIF_F_LLTX. Makes sense?

And I would probably add:

Fixes: 91da11f870f0 ("net: Distributed Switch Architecture protocol support")