netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/4] ethtool: ntuple: fix rss + ring

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Z6E1afDYGcU2NM7V@LQ3V64L9R2>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:30:17 -0800
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org,
	shuah@...nel.org, ecree.xilinx@...il.com, gal@...dia.com,
	przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/4] ethtool: ntuple: fix rss + ring_cookie check

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 01:25:19PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:16:46 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 05:30:38PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > The info.flow_type is for RXFH commands, ntuple flow_type is inside
> > > the flow spec. The check currently does nothing, as info.flow_type
> > > is 0 for ETHTOOL_SRXCLSRLINS.  
> > 
> > Agree with Gal; I think ethtool's stack allocated ethtool_rxnfc
> > could result in some garbage value being passed in for
> > info.flow_type.
> 
> I admit I haven't dug into the user space side, but in the kernel
> my reading is that the entire struct ethtool_rxnfc, which includes
> _both_ flow_type fields gets copied in. IOW struct ethtool_rxnfc
> has two flow_type fields, one directly in the struct and one inside 
> the fs member.

Agree with you there; there are two fields and I think your change
is correct. I think the nit is just the wording of the commit
message as ethtool's user space stack might have some junk where
info.flow_type is (instead of 0). I only very briefly skimmed the
ethtool side, so perhaps I missed something.

In any case: IMHO, I don't think it's worth resending just for a
minor commit message tweak.