netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/5] virtio-net: fix overflow inside virtnet_rq

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: <6aaee824-a5df-42a4-b35e-e89756471084@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:42:59 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
 Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
 Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] virtio-net: fix overflow inside virtnet_rq_alloc

On 10/14/24 05:12, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> When the frag just got a page, then may lead to regression on VM.
> Specially if the sysctl net.core.high_order_alloc_disable value is 1,
> then the frag always get a page when do refill.
> 
> Which could see reliable crashes or scp failure (scp a file 100M in size
> to VM):
> 
> The issue is that the virtnet_rq_dma takes up 16 bytes at the beginning
> of a new frag. When the frag size is larger than PAGE_SIZE,
> everything is fine. However, if the frag is only one page and the
> total size of the buffer and virtnet_rq_dma is larger than one page, an
> overflow may occur.
> 
> Here, when the frag size is not enough, we reduce the buffer len to fix
> this problem.
> 
> Fixes: f9dac92ba908 ("virtio_ring: enable premapped mode whatever use_dma_api")
> Reported-by: "Si-Wei Liu" <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>

This looks like a fix that should target the net tree, but the following 
patches looks like net-next material. Any special reason to bundle them 
together?

Also, please explicitly include the the target tree in the subj on next 
submissions, thanks!

Paolo