netdev - RE: [Patch v2] hv_netvsc: Mark VF as slave before exposing it to user-mode

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]

Message-ID:
 <PH7PR21MB32639C8A7EE6431FF990B5F1CEA1A@PH7PR21MB3263.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 22:29:02 +0000
From: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "longli@...uxonhyperv.com"
	<longli@...uxonhyperv.com>
CC: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>, Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [Patch v2] hv_netvsc: Mark VF as slave before exposing it to
 user-mode

> Subject: Re: [Patch v2] hv_netvsc: Mark VF as slave before exposing it to user-
> mode
> 
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:59:50 -0700 longli@...uxonhyperv.com wrote:
> > When a VF is being exposed form the kernel, it should be marked as "slave"
> > before exposing to the user-mode. The VF is not usable without netvsc
> > running as master. The user-mode should never see a VF without the "slave"
> flag.
> >
> > This commit moves the code of setting the slave flag to the time
> > before VF is exposed to user-mode.
> 
> Can you give a real example in the commit message of a flow in user space
> which would get confused by seeing the VF netdev without IFF_SLAVE?

A user-mode program may see the VF netdev show up without SLAVE flag before seeing the NETVSC netdev. It may try to configure the VF before it will be bonded to a NETVSC.

With the IFF_SLAVE correctly set at the time of VF showing up to the user-mode, it can rely on this flag to decide if this device should be ignored. (without implementing some timeout logic to detect a potential NETVSC device that may show up later)

> 
> You're only moving setting IFF_SLAVE but not linking the master, is there no
> code which would assume that if SLAVE is set there is a master?

The same (taking IFF_SLAVE without linking to master) is done in the original code before VF is joined, but it was for another purpose. I think there is a gap between when the VF is acted upon by other parts of the system and when it's bonded.