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: <20230503162932.GN525452@unreal> Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 19:29:32 +0300 From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> To: Ding Hui <dinghui@...gfor.com.cn> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, keescook@...omium.org, grzegorzx.szczurek@...el.com, mateusz.palczewski@...el.com, mitch.a.williams@...el.com, gregory.v.rose@...el.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, michal.kubiak@...el.com, simon.horman@...igine.com, madhu.chittim@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, pengdonglin@...gfor.com.cn, huangcun@...gfor.com.cn Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 2/2] iavf: Fix out-of-bounds when setting channels on remove On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 10:00:49PM +0800, Ding Hui wrote: > On 2023/5/3 4:24 下午, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 11:15:41AM +0800, Ding Hui wrote: > > > > > > > If we detected removing is in processing, we can avoid unnecessary > > > waiting and return error faster. > > > > > > On the other hand in timeout handling, we should keep the original > > > num_active_queues and reset num_req_queues to 0. > > > > > > Fixes: 4e5e6b5d9d13 ("iavf: Fix return of set the new channel count") > > > Signed-off-by: Ding Hui <dinghui@...gfor.com.cn> > > > Cc: Donglin Peng <pengdonglin@...gfor.com.cn> > > > Cc: Huang Cun <huangcun@...gfor.com.cn> > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@...el.com> > > > --- > > > v3 to v4: > > > - nothing changed > > > > > > v2 to v3: > > > - fix review tag > > > > > > v1 to v2: > > > - add reproduction script > > > > > > --- > > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_ethtool.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_ethtool.c > > > index 6f171d1d85b7..d8a3c0cfedd0 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_ethtool.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_ethtool.c > > > @@ -1857,13 +1857,15 @@ static int iavf_set_channels(struct net_device *netdev, > > > /* wait for the reset is done */ > > > for (i = 0; i < IAVF_RESET_WAIT_COMPLETE_COUNT; i++) { > > > msleep(IAVF_RESET_WAIT_MS); > > > + if (test_bit(__IAVF_IN_REMOVE_TASK, &adapter->crit_section)) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > This makes no sense without locking as change to __IAVF_IN_REMOVE_TASK > > can happen any time. > > > > The state doesn't need to be that precise here, it is optimized only for > the fast path. During the lifecycle of the adapter, the __IAVF_IN_REMOVE_TASK > state will only be set and not cleared. > > If we didn't detect the "removing" state, we also can fallback to timeout > handling. > > So I don't think the locking is necessary here, what do the maintainers > at Intel think? I'm not Intel maintainer, but your change, explanation and the following line from your commit message aren't really aligned. [ 3510.400799] ================================================================== [ 3510.400820] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in iavf_free_all_tx_resources+0x156/0x160 [iavf] > > > Thanks > > > > > if (adapter->flags & IAVF_FLAG_RESET_PENDING) > > > continue; > > > break; > > > } > > > if (i == IAVF_RESET_WAIT_COMPLETE_COUNT) { > > > adapter->flags &= ~IAVF_FLAG_REINIT_ITR_NEEDED; > > > - adapter->num_active_queues = num_req; > > > + adapter->num_req_queues = 0; > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.17.1 > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > -dinghui > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists