netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/1 v3] net: sched: Disallow replacing of child qdisc from one parent to another

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: <20250115075154.528eee8a@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:51:54 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, security@...nel.org,
 nnamrec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1 v3] net: sched: Disallow replacing of child
 qdisc from one parent to another

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 09:53:27 -0500 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > I may be missing something - what does TC_H_MAJ() provide?
> > > The 3:1 and 1:3 in that example are both descendants of the same
> > > parent. It could have been 1:3 vs 1:2 and the same rules would apply.  
> >
> > Let me flip the question. What qdisc movement / grafts are you intending
> > to still support?
> >  
> 
> Grafting essentially boils down to a del/add of a qdisc. The
> ambiguities: Does it mean deleting it from one hierachy point and
> adding it to another point? Or does it mean not deleting it from the
> first location but making it available in the other one?
> 
> > From the report it sounds like we don't want to support _any_ movement
> > of existing qdiscs within the hierarchy. Only purpose of graft would
> > be to install a new / fresh qdisc as a child.  
> 
> That sounded like the safest approach. If there is a practical use for
> moving queues around (I am not aware of any, doesnt mean there is no
> practical use) then we can do the much bigger surgery.

So coming back to the code I would have expected the patch to look
something along the lines of:

diff --git a/net/sched/sch_api.c b/net/sched/sch_api.c
index 300430b8c4d2..fac9c946a4c7 100644
--- a/net/sched/sch_api.c
+++ b/net/sched/sch_api.c
@@ -1664,6 +1664,10 @@ static int tc_modify_qdisc(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *n,
 				q = qdisc_lookup(dev, tcm->tcm_handle);
 				if (!q)
 					goto create_n_graft;
+				if (q->parent != tcm->tcm_parent) {
+					NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Cannot move an existing qdisc to a different parent");
+					return -EINVAL;
+				}
 				if (n->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_EXCL) {
 					NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Exclusivity flag on, cannot override");
 					return -EEXIST;


Whether a real (non-default) leaf already existed in that spot 
is not important..