netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/8] rtnetlink: do not depend on RTNL for many attributes

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: <CANn89iLB9qZ77AY8ZMBST2FMqie8sPfHDUPUcg-GXMtkmAaoWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 18:39:54 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/8] rtnetlink: do not depend on RTNL for many attributes

On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 6:38 PM Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 05:14:58PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 5:06 PM Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 05, 2024 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 4:47 PM Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 07:20:56PM +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > > Following device fields can be read locklessly
> > > > > > in rtnl_fill_ifinfo() :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > type, ifindex, operstate, link_mode, mtu, min_mtu, max_mtu, group,
> > > > > > promiscuity, allmulti, num_tx_queues, gso_max_segs, gso_max_size,
> > > > > > gro_max_size, gso_ipv4_max_size, gro_ipv4_max_size, tso_max_size,
> > > > > > tso_max_segs, num_rx_queues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Eric,
> > > > >
> > > > > * Regarding mtu, as the comment you added to sruct net_device
> > > > >   some time ago mentions, mtu is written in many places.
> > > > >
> > > > >   I'm wondering if, in particular wrt ndo_change_mtu implementations,
> > > > >   if some it is appropriate to add WRITE_ONCE() annotations.
> > > >
> > > > Sure thing. I called for these changes in commit
> > > > 501a90c94510 ("inet: protect against too small mtu values.")
> > > > when I said "Hopefully we will add the missing ones in followup patches."
> > >
> > > Ok, so basically it would be nice to add them,
> > > but they don't block progress of this patchset?
> >
> > A patch set adding WRITE_ONCE() on all dev->mtu would be great,
> > and seems orthogonal.
>
> Ack. I'm guessing an incremental approach to getting better coverage would
> be best. I'll add this to my todo list.

I sent a single patch about that already ;)

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20240506102812.3025432-1-edumazet@google.com/

Thanks !