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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 18:43:35 +0200 From: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com> To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, eric.dumazet@...il.com, syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxtram95@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: sched: fix race condition in qdisc_graft() On 20/11/2022 18:09, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 11:42 PM Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com> wrote: >> On 10/11/2022 11:08, Gal Pressman wrote: >>> On 06/11/2022 10:07, Gal Pressman wrote: >>>> It reproduces consistently: >>>> ip link set dev eth2 up >>>> ip addr add 194.237.173.123/16 dev eth2 >>>> tc qdisc add dev eth2 clsact >>>> tc qdisc add dev eth2 root handle 1: htb default 1 offload >>>> tc class add dev eth2 classid 1: parent root htb rate 18000mbit ceil >>>> 22500.0mbit burst 450000kbit cburst 450000kbit >>>> tc class add dev eth2 classid 1:3 parent 1: htb rate 3596mbit burst >>>> 89900kbit cburst 89900kbit >>>> tc qdisc delete dev eth2 clsact >>>> tc qdisc delete dev eth2 root handle 1: htb default 1 >>>> >>>> Please let me know if there's anything else you want me to check. >>> Hi Eric, did you get a chance to take a look? >> No response for quite a long time, Jakub, should I submit a revert? > Sorry, I won't have time to look at this before maybe two weeks. Thanks for the response, Eric. > If you want to revert a patch which is correct, because some code > assumes something wrong, I am not convinced about the "code assumes something wrong" part, and not sure what are the consequences of this WARN being triggered, are you? > I will simply say this seems not good. Arguable, it is not that clear that a fix that introduces another issue is a good thing, particularly when we don't understand the severity of the thing that got broken. Two weeks gets us to the end of -rc7, a bit too dangerous to my personal taste, but I'm not the one making the calls.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists