netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] inet: do not use RTNL in inet_netconf_get

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CANn89i+TfGnpBthoix4QmfC6hEsEH0HdYnAowMPeNz0z+4qUjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:09:49 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] inet: do not use RTNL in inet_netconf_get_devconf()

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 1:59 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>
> Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:24:10AM CET, edumazet@...gle.com wrote:
> >"ip -4 netconf show dev XXXX" no longer acquires RTNL.
>
> I was under impression that you refer to the current code, confused me a
> bit :/
>
>
> >
> >Return -ENODEV instead of -EINVAL if no netdev or idev can be found.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> >---
> > net/ipv4/devinet.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> >index ca75d0fff1d1ebd8c199fb74a6f0e2f51160635c..f045a34e90b974b17512a30c3b719bdfc3cba153 100644
> >--- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> >+++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> >@@ -2205,21 +2205,20 @@ static int inet_netconf_get_devconf(struct sk_buff *in_skb,
> >                                   struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> > {
> >       struct net *net = sock_net(in_skb->sk);
> >-      struct nlattr *tb[NETCONFA_MAX+1];
> >+      struct nlattr *tb[NETCONFA_MAX + 1];
> >+      const struct ipv4_devconf *devconf;
> >+      struct in_device *in_dev = NULL;
> >+      struct net_device *dev = NULL;
> >       struct sk_buff *skb;
> >-      struct ipv4_devconf *devconf;
> >-      struct in_device *in_dev;
> >-      struct net_device *dev;
> >       int ifindex;
> >       int err;
> >
> >       err = inet_netconf_valid_get_req(in_skb, nlh, tb, extack);
> >       if (err)
> >-              goto errout;
> >+              return err;
> >
> >-      err = -EINVAL;
> >       if (!tb[NETCONFA_IFINDEX])
> >-              goto errout;
> >+              return -EINVAL;
> >
> >       ifindex = nla_get_s32(tb[NETCONFA_IFINDEX]);
> >       switch (ifindex) {
> >@@ -2230,10 +2229,10 @@ static int inet_netconf_get_devconf(struct sk_buff *in_skb,
> >               devconf = net->ipv4.devconf_dflt;
> >               break;
> >       default:
> >-              dev = __dev_get_by_index(net, ifindex);
> >-              if (!dev)
> >-                      goto errout;
> >-              in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev);
> >+              err = -ENODEV;
> >+              dev = dev_get_by_index(net, ifindex);
>
> Comment says:
> /* Deprecated for new users, call netdev_get_by_index() instead */
> struct net_device *dev_get_by_index(struct net *net, int ifindex)

Only for long-standing allocations, where we are not sure if a leak
could happen or not.
We do not bother allocating a tracker otherwise.
Look at inet6_netconf_get_devconf() :
We left there dev_get_by_index() and dev_put().

I think I am aware of the tracking facility, I implemented it...


>
> Perhaps better to use:
> netdev_get_by_index() and netdev_put()?
>
>
> >+              if (dev)
> >+                      in_dev = in_dev_get(dev);
>
> The original flow:
>                 err = -ENODEV;
>                 dev = dev_get_by_index(net, ifindex);
>                 if (!dev)
>                         goto errout;
>                 in_dev = in_dev_get(dev);
>                 if (!in_dev)
>                         goto errout;

A single goto looks nicer to me.

> Reads a bit nicer to me. Not sure why you changed it. Yeah, it's a nit.
>