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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 20:38:53 +0800
From: shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
	<andy@...yhouse.net>, <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next,v2] bonding: use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of BUG in
 alb_upper_dev_walk



On 2023/11/14 18:16, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 05:18:29PM +0800, Zhengchao Shao wrote:
>> If failed to allocate "tags" or could not find the final upper device from
>> start_dev's upper list in bond_verify_device_path(), only the loopback
>> detection of the current upper device should be affected, and the system is
>> no need to be panic.
>> Using WARN_ON_ONCE here is to avoid spamming the log if there's a lot of
>> macvlans above the bond.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> v2: use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c | 6 ++++--
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>> index dc2c7b979656..a7bad0fff8cb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>> @@ -984,8 +984,10 @@ static int alb_upper_dev_walk(struct net_device *upper,
>>   	 */
>>   	if (netif_is_macvlan(upper) && !strict_match) {
>>   		tags = bond_verify_device_path(bond->dev, upper, 0);
>> -		if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(tags))
>> -			BUG();
>> +		if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(tags)) {
>> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>> +			return 0;
> 
> Return 0 for an error looks weird. Should we keep walking the list if
> allocate "tags" failed?
> 
> Thanks
> Hangbin
> 
Hi Hangbin:
	I think minimizing the impact of a single allocation failure
is OK.

Zhengchao Shao




Powered by blists - more mailing lists