netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] nfp: flower: Fix a potential 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220218110603.GB29654@corigine.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Feb 2022 12:06:03 +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 v2 1/2] nfp: flower: Fix a potential leak in
 nfp_tunnel_add_shared_mac()

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 07:20:30PM +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 17/02/2022 à 08:59, Simon Horman a écrit :
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 04:53:56PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 23:34:52 +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.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 20cce8865098 ("nfp: flower: enable MAC address sharing for offloadable devs")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> > > 
> > > This patch is a fix and the other one is refactoring. They can't be
> > > in the same series because they need to go to different trees. Please
> > > repost the former with [PATCH net] and ~one week later the latter with
> > > [PATCH net-next].
> > 
> > Thanks Jakub.
> > 
> > Christophe, please let me know if you'd like me to handle reposting
> > the patches as described by Jakub.
> > 
> Hi,
> 
> If you can, it's fine for me.
> 
> I must admit that what I consider, as an hobbyist, too much bureaucracy is
> sometimes discouraging.
> 
> I do understand the need for maintainers to have things the way they need,
> but, well, maybe sometimes it is too much.
> 
> In this particular case, maybe patch 1/2 could be applied to net as-is, and
> 2/2 just dropped because not really useful.
> 
> 
> (Just the thoughts of a tired man after a long day at work, don't worry,
> tomorrow, I'll be in a better mood)

Thanks Christophe,

I appreciate your frustration and apologise for my part in it.

I'll work on getting this short series accepted upstream.