netdev - Re: [PATCH] nfp: flower: Fix a potential theorical leak in nfp_tunnel_add_shared

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: <YgVdw1Ic7iEmvqx1@corigine.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 19:47:31 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        John Hurley <john.hurley@...ronome.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...igine.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfp: flower: Fix a potential theorical leak in
 nfp_tunnel_add_shared_mac()

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 07:39:29PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 10/02/2022 à 14:04, Simon Horman a écrit :
> > Hi Christophe,
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 07:58:47PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > ida_simple_get() returns an id between min (0) and max (NFP_MAX_MAC_INDEX)
> > > inclusive.
> > > So NFP_MAX_MAC_INDEX (0xff) is a valid id
> > > 
> > > In order for the error handling path to work correctly, the 'invalid'
> > > value for 'ida_idx' should not be in the 0..NFP_MAX_MAC_INDEX range,
> > > inclusive.
> > > 
> > > So set it to -1.
> > > 
> > > While at it, use ida_alloc_xxx()/ida_free() instead to
> > > ida_simple_get()/ida_simple_remove().
> > > The latter is deprecated and more verbose.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 20cce8865098 ("nfp: flower: enable MAC address sharing for offloadable devs")
> > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> > 
> > Thanks for your patch.
> > 
> > I agree that it is indeed a problem and your fix looks good.
> > I would, however, prefer if the patch was split into two:
> > 
> > 1. Bug fix
> > 2. ida_alloc_xxx()/ida_free() cleanup
> 
> I'll send a v2.
> 
> I added it because some other maintainers have asked for it in other similar
> patches. Everyone's taste is different :).

Thanks, much appreciated.