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: <Y4XDbEWmLRE3D1Bx@nanopsycho> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:31:40 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>, Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...dia.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: devlink: fix UAF in devlink_compat_running_version() Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 07:20:43PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote: >On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:58:58 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >Long term, we either need to find a way to make the ethtool compat stuff >> >work correctly or just get rid of it and have affected drivers implement >> >the relevant ethtool operations instead of relying on devlink. >> > >> >[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221122121048.776643-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com/ >> >> I just had a call with Ido. We both think that this might be a good >> solution for -net to avoid the use after free. >> >> For net-next, we eventually should change driver init flows to register >> devlink instance first and only after that register devlink_port and >> related netdevice. The ordering is important for the userspace app. For >> example the init flow: >> <- RTnetlink new netdev event >> app sees devlink_port handle in IFLA_DEVLINK_PORT >> -> query devlink instance using this handle >> <- ENODEV >> >> The instance is not registered yet. >> >> So we need to make sure all devlink_port_register() calls are happening >> after devlink_register(). This is aligned with the original flow before >> devlink_register() was moved by Leon. Also it is aligned with devlink >> reload and devlink port split flows. > >Cool. Do you also agree with doing proper refcounting for the devlink >instance struct and the liveness check after locking the instance? Could you elaborate a bit more? I missed that in the thread and can't find it. Why do we need it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists