netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] r8152: Block future register access if register access fails

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:41:36 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	Edward Hill <ecgh@...omium.org>, Laura Nao <laura.nao@...labora.com>, 
	"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, Grant Grundler <grundler@...omium.org>, 
	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] r8152: Block future register access if register
 access fails

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 4:41 AM Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com> wrote:
>
> > In any case, we haven't actually seen hardware that fails like this.
> > We've seen failure rates that are much much lower and we can imagine
> > failure rates that are 100% if we're got really broken hardware. Do
> > you think cases where failure rates are middle-of-the-road are likely?
>
> That is my question, too.
> I don't know if something would cause the situation, either.
> This is out of my knowledge.
> I am waiting for the professional answers, too.
>
> A lot of reasons may cause the fail of the control transfer.
> I don't have all of the real situation to analyze them.
> Therefore, what I could do is to assume different situations.
> You could say my hypotheses are unreasonable.
> However, I have to tell you what I worry.

Of course! ...and I appreciate your thoughts on the topic. The more
eyes on a patch the more problems that are caught. Unless someone
disagrees, I think we at least have ideas for how this could be
addressed if it comes up. Also unless someone disagrees, I think that
if this does come up in some situation it won't be a catastrophe.

Given how things look now, I'm going to plan to send a new version of
the patch later today. Though the commit message is long, I'll add a
little more to talk about this case and point to ideas for how it
could be solved if it comes up.


> > I would also say that nothing we can do can perfectly handle faulty
> > hardware. If we're imagining theoretical hardware, we could imagine
> > theoretical hardware that de-enumerated itself and re-enumerated
> > itself every half second because the firmware on the device crashed or
> > some regulator kept dropping. This faulty hardware would also cause an
> > infinite loop of de-enumeration and re-enumeration, right?
> >
> > Presumably if we get into either case, the user will realize that the
> > hardware isn't working and will unplug it from the system. While the
>
> Some of our devices are onboard. That is, they couldn't be unplugged.
> That is why I have to consider a lot of situations.

Good point! I think even with onboard devices we could already have
preexisting conditions that could cause an unbind/rebind loop. This
would be a new condition, of course.


-Doug