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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:11:57 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
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() 

Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:09:49PM CET, edumazet@...gle.com wrote:
>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.

Makes sense. Would it make sense to fix the "deprecated" comment then to
also reflect this usecase?


>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...

Yeah, I was just refering to the comment.


>
>
>>
>> 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.

:)

Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>


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