netdev - Re: [PATCH net] xen-netback: properly sync TX responses

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]

Message-ID: <ee98c944-610a-44a3-a26e-a10c25c12eb8@xen.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:43:21 +0000
From: Paul Durrant <xadimgnik@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Wei Liu <wl@....org>,
 "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] xen-netback: properly sync TX responses

On 01/02/2024 00:23, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:03:08 +0100 Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Invoking the make_tx_response() / push_tx_responses() pair with no lock
>> held would be acceptable only if all such invocations happened from the
>> same context (NAPI instance or dealloc thread). Since this isn't the
>> case, and since the interface "spec" also doesn't demand that multicast
>> operations may only be performed with no in-flight transmits,
>> MCAST_{ADD,DEL} processing also needs to acquire the response lock
>> around the invocations.
>>
>> To prevent similar mistakes going forward, "downgrade" the present
>> functions to private helpers of just the two remaining ones using them
>> directly, with no forward declarations anymore. This involves renaming
>> what so far was make_tx_response(), for the new function of that name
>> to serve the new (wrapper) purpose.
>>
>> While there,
>> - constify the txp parameters,
>> - correct xenvif_idx_release()'s status parameter's type,
>> - rename {,_}make_tx_response()'s status parameters for consistency with
>>    xenvif_idx_release()'s.
> 
> Hi Paul, is this one on your TODO list to review or should
> we do our best? :)

Sorry for the delay. I'll take a look at this now.

   Paul