[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874iywux7o.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 12:28:43 +0200
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Ilya
Maximets <i.maximets@...hat.com>, Frode Nordahl
<frode.nordahl@...onical.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tc: Ensure we have enough buffer space when sending
filter netlink notifications
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 12:55:34PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> +static struct sk_buff *tfilter_notify_prep(struct net *net,
>> + struct sk_buff *oskb,
>> + struct nlmsghdr *n,
>> + struct tcf_proto *tp,
>> + struct tcf_block *block,
>> + struct Qdisc *q, u32 parent,
>> + void *fh, int event,
>> + u32 portid, bool rtnl_held,
>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int size = oskb ? max(NLMSG_GOODSIZE, oskb->len) : NLMSG_GOODSIZE;
>> + struct sk_buff *skb;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> +retry:
>> + skb = alloc_skb(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!skb)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOBUFS);
>> +
>> + ret = tcf_fill_node(net, skb, tp, block, q, parent, fh, portid,
>> + n->nlmsg_seq, n->nlmsg_flags, event, false,
>> + rtnl_held, extack);
>> + if (ret <= 0) {
>> + kfree_skb(skb);
>> + if (ret == -EMSGSIZE) {
>> + size += NLMSG_GOODSIZE;
>> + goto retry;
>
> It is a bit concerning to see this technically unbound loop.
Well, I did think about that. The loop will terminate eventually by
either succeeding, or failing the allocation. Most likely the former,
since this is only called after a filter has been successfully
installed. I.e., it's not like the amount of data being put into the skb
is unbounded.
>> + }
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> I think you probably want to propagate the error code from
> tcf_fill_node() here.
I just kept the existing return value (of tfilter_notify()) for the same
error case. tcf_fill_node() always returns -1 on error, so I think it
makes more sense to keep this?
Paolo already merged the patch, and I don't think it's worth it to
follow up with any fixes, cf the above. WDYT?
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists