netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] af_unix: Don't peek OOB data without MSG

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: <dc42242b-40f2-4be0-b068-62e897678461@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:01:15 -0700
From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        kuni1840@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] af_unix: Don't peek OOB data without MSG_OOB.



On 4/16/24 14:47, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:34:20 -0700
>> On 4/16/24 13:51, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>>> From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:11:09 -0700
>>>> The proposed fix is not the correct fix as among other things it does
>>>> not allow going pass the OOB if data is present. TCP allows that.
>>>
>>> Ugh, exactly.
>>>
>>> But the behaviour was broken initially, so the tag is
>>>
>>> Fixes: 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support")
>>>
>>
>> Where is this requirement listed?
> 
> Please start with these docs.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PswtQoZm7r5MGnH8pv3OewI_PvmSRJb29YcA0pnVOzuu8T3xvWlw4lLlLzFhzn6uO2lo0bUA5Yikc2A$
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PswtQoZm7r5MGnH8pv3OewI_PvmSRJb29YcA0pnVOzuu8T3xvWlw4lLlLzFhzn6uO2lo0bUAdoz3l7w$
> 
> 
That is a suggestion. I see commits in even af_unix.c which do not 
follow that convention. They just mention what the fix is about. In this 
case it is implied.

I am not opposed specifying it but it seems it's optional.


>>
>>
>>> Could you post patches formally on top of the latest net.git ?
>>> It seems one of my patch is squashed.
>>
>> I pulled in last night, your last fix has not yet made it (I think)
>>
>> [rshoaib@...bo-2 linux_oob]$ git describe
>> v6.9-rc4-32-gbf541423b785
> 
> Probably you are using another git tree or branch.
> 
> Networking subsystem uses net.git for fixes and net-next.git for new
> features as written in the 2nd doc above.
> 
> My patch landed on 4 days ago at least.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=283454c8a123072e5c386a5a2b5fc576aa455b6f__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PswtQoZm7r5MGnH8pv3OewI_PvmSRJb29YcA0pnVOzuu8T3xvWlw4lLlLzFhzn6uO2lo0bUA32gMtng$
> 
> Also you should receive this email.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/171297422982.31124.3409808601326947596.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PswtQoZm7r5MGnH8pv3OewI_PvmSRJb29YcA0pnVOzuu8T3xvWlw4lLlLzFhzn6uO2lo0bUAnOykbCY$
> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Also, please note that one patch should fix one issue.
>>> The change in queue_oob() should be another patch.
>>>
>>
>> I was just responding to your email. I was not sure if you wanted to
>> modify your fix. If you prefer I submit the patches, I will later.
> 
> As I said, my fix is already in net.git, so you can post a separte
> patch based on net.git/main.
> 
I used the latest from Linus.
I will submit the patches later.

Shoaib