netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] veth: a couple of fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87pmdky130.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 12:05:39 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...nel.org>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Heng Qi <henqqi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] veth: a couple of fixes

Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> writes:

> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 00:33 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> Recent changes in the veth driver caused a few regressions
>> this series addresses a couple of them, causing oops.
>> 
>> Paolo Abeni (2):
>>   veth: fix uninitialized napi disable
>>   veth: fix double napi enable
>> 
>>  drivers/net/veth.c | 6 ++++--
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> @Xuan Zhuo: another option would be reverting 2e0de6366ac1 ("veth:
> Avoid drop packets when xdp_redirect performs") and its follow-up
> 5e5dc33d5dac ("bpf: veth driver panics when xdp prog attached before
> veth_open").
>
> That option would be possibly safer, because I feel there are other
> issues with 2e0de6366ac1, and would offer the opportunity to refactor
> its logic a bit: the napi enable/disable condition is quite complex and
> not used consistently mixing and alternating the gro/xdp/peer xdp check
> with the napi ptr dereference.
>
> Ideally it would be better to have an helper alike
> napi_should_be_enabled(), use it everywhere, and pair the new code with
> some selftests, extending the existing ones.
>
> WDYT?

FWIW, the original commit 2e0de6366ac1 was merged very quickly without
much review; so I'm not terribly surprised it breaks. I would personally
be OK with just reverting it...

-Toke