netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 13/13] bnxt_en: Add support for ntuple filter deletion by ethtool.

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: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 14:59:55 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com,
 andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 13/13] bnxt_en: Add support for ntuple
 filter deletion by ethtool.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 20:22:10 -0800 Michael Chan wrote:
> +	if (fltr_base) {
> +		struct bnxt_ntuple_filter *fltr;
> +
> +		fltr = container_of(fltr_base, struct bnxt_ntuple_filter, base);
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		if (!(fltr->base.flags & BNXT_ACT_NO_AGING))
> +			return -EINVAL;

This looks pretty suspicious, you drop the RCU lock before ever using
the object. I'm guessing the filter may be form aRFS and that's why
we need RCU? Shouldn't you hold the RCU lock when checking that
NO_AGING is set? If it's an aRFS flow it may disappear..