| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <FA317E17-3B09-411B-9DF6-05BDD320D988@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 01:54:13 +0200
From: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>,
Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...el.com>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Di Zhu <zhudi21@...wei.com>, Xu Wang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
"Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/15] net: dsa: sja1105: Remove usage of
iterator for list_add() after loop
Hello Vladimir,
> On 8. Apr 2022, at 13:41, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Jakob,
>
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>> In preparation to limit the scope of a list iterator to the list
>> traversal loop, use a dedicated pointer to point to the found element [1].
>>
>> Before, the code implicitly used the head when no element was found
>> when using &pos->list. Since the new variable is only set if an
>> element was found, the list_add() is performed within the loop
>> and only done after the loop if it is done on the list head directly.
>>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgRr_D8CB-D9Kg-c=EHreAsk5SqXPwr9Y7k9sA6cWXJ6w@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
>> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
>> index b7e95d60a6e4..cfcae4d19eef 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
>> @@ -27,20 +27,24 @@ static int sja1105_insert_gate_entry(struct sja1105_gating_config *gating_cfg,
>> if (list_empty(&gating_cfg->entries)) {
>> list_add(&e->list, &gating_cfg->entries);
>> } else {
>> - struct sja1105_gate_entry *p;
>> + struct sja1105_gate_entry *p = NULL, *iter;
>>
>> - list_for_each_entry(p, &gating_cfg->entries, list) {
>> - if (p->interval == e->interval) {
>> + list_for_each_entry(iter, &gating_cfg->entries, list) {
>> + if (iter->interval == e->interval) {
>> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
>> "Gate conflict");
>> rc = -EBUSY;
>> goto err;
>> }
>>
>> - if (e->interval < p->interval)
>> + if (e->interval < iter->interval) {
>> + p = iter;
>> + list_add(&e->list, iter->list.prev);
>> break;
>> + }
>> }
>> - list_add(&e->list, p->list.prev);
>> + if (!p)
>> + list_add(&e->list, gating_cfg->entries.prev);
>> }
>>
>> gating_cfg->num_entries++;
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
>
> I apologize in advance if I've misinterpreted the end goal of your patch.
> I do have a vague suspicion I understand what you're trying to achieve,
> and in that case, would you mind using this patch instead of yours?
I think you are very much spot on!
> I think it still preserves the intention of the code in a clean manner.
>
> -----------------------------[ cut here ]-----------------------------
> From 7aed740750d1bc3bff6e85fd33298f5905bb4e01 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:55:14 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] net: dsa: sja1105: avoid use of type-confused pointer in
> sja1105_insert_gate_entry()
>
> It appears that list_for_each_entry() leaks a type-confused pointer when
> the iteration loop ends with no early break, since "*p" will no longer
> point to a "struct sja1105_gate_entry", but rather to some memory in
> front of "gating_cfg->entries".
>
> This isn't actually a problem here, because if the element we insert has
> the highest interval, therefore we never exit the loop early, "p->list"
> (which is all that we use outside the loop) will in fact point to
> "gating_cfg->entries" even though "p" itself is invalid.
>
> Nonetheless, there are preparations to increase the safety of
> list_for_each_entry() by making it impossible to use the encapsulating
> structure of the iterator element outside the loop. So something needs
> to change here before those preparations go in, even though this
> constitutes legitimate use.
>
> Make it clear that we are not dereferencing members of the encapsulating
> "struct sja1105_gate_entry" outside the loop, by using the regular
> list_for_each() iterator, and dereferencing the struct sja1105_gate_entry
> only within the loop.
>
> With list_for_each(), the iterator element at the end of the loop does
> have a sane value in all cases, and we can just use that as the "head"
> argument of list_add().
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> ---
> drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
> index c0e45b393fde..fe93c80fe5ef 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
> @@ -27,9 +27,15 @@ static int sja1105_insert_gate_entry(struct sja1105_gating_config *gating_cfg,
> if (list_empty(&gating_cfg->entries)) {
> list_add(&e->list, &gating_cfg->entries);
> } else {
> - struct sja1105_gate_entry *p;
> + struct list_head *pos;
> +
> + /* We cannot safely use list_for_each_entry()
> + * because we dereference "pos" after the loop
> + */
> + list_for_each(pos, &gating_cfg->entries) {
> + struct sja1105_gate_entry *p;
>
> - list_for_each_entry(p, &gating_cfg->entries, list) {
> + p = list_entry(pos, struct sja1105_gate_entry, list);
> if (p->interval == e->interval) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
> "Gate conflict");
> @@ -40,7 +46,7 @@ static int sja1105_insert_gate_entry(struct sja1105_gating_config *gating_cfg,
> if (e->interval < p->interval)
> break;
> }
> - list_add(&e->list, p->list.prev);
> + list_add(&e->list, pos->prev);
I was actually considering doing it this way before but wasn't sure if this would be preferred.
I've done something like this in [1] and it does turn out quite well.
I'll integrate this in the v2 series.
Thanks for the suggestion.
> }
>
> gating_cfg->num_entries++;
> -----------------------------[ cut here ]-----------------------------
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20220407102900.3086255-12-jakobkoschel@gmail.com/
Jakob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists