netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/4] net: drop netif_attrmask

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 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]

Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 17:07:31 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>,
        Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] net: drop netif_attrmask_next*()

On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 04:25:56PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:11:05 -0700 Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 09:50:48AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Sun,  2 Oct 2022 08:16:58 -0700 Yury Norov wrote:  
> > > > netif_attrmask_next_and() generates warnings if CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS
> > > > is enabled.  
> > > 
> > > Could you describe the nature of the warning? Is it a false positive 
> > > or a legit warning?
> > > 
> > > If the former perhaps we should defer until after the next merge window.  
> > 
> > The problem is that netif_attrmask_next_and() is called with
> > n == nr_cpu_ids-1, which triggers cpu_max_bits_warn() after this:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220926103437.322f3c6c@kernel.org/
> 
> I see. Is that patch merged and on it's way?

This patch is already in pull request.

> Perhaps we can just revert it and try again after the merge window?

I don't understand this. To me it looks fairly normal - the check has
been fixed and merged (likely) in -rc1. After that we have 2 month to
spot, fix and test all issues discovered with correct cpumask_check().

I'm not insisting in moving this series in -rc1. Let's give it review
and careful testing, and merge in -rc2, 3 or whatever is appropriate.

Regarding cpumask_check() patch - I'd like to have it in -rc1 because
it will give people enough time to test their code...

Would it work?

Thanks,
Yury