From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sock: validate data_len before allocating skb in sock_alloc_send_pskb()
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:11:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FC70BA8.5060200@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120531060201.GA13158@redhat.com>
On 05/31/2012 02:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:00:14PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 05/30/2012 03:02 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Eric Dumazet<eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:46:23 +0200
>>>
>>>> Why doing this test in the while (1) block, it should be done before the
>>>> loop...
>>>>
>>>> Or even in the caller, note net/unix/af_unix.c does this right.
>>>>
>>>> if (len> SKB_MAX_ALLOC)
>>>> data_len = min_t(size_t,
>>>> len - SKB_MAX_ALLOC,
>>>> MAX_SKB_FRAGS * PAGE_SIZE);
>>>>
>>>> skb = sock_alloc_send_pskb(sk, len - data_len, data_len,
>>>> msg->msg_flags& MSG_DONTWAIT,&err);
>>> My impression is that the callers should be fixed to. It makes no sense
>>> to penalize the call sites that get this right.
>>>
>>> And yes, if we do check it in sock_alloc_send_pskb() it should be done
>>> at function entry, not inside the loop.
>> Sure, so is it ok for me to send a V2 that just do the fixing in
>> sock_alloc_sned_pskb() as it's simple and easy to be accepted by
>> stable version?
>>
>> For the fix of callers, I want to post fixes on top as I find
>> there's some code duplication of {tun|macvtap|packet}_alloc_skb()
>> and I want to unify them to a common helper in sock.c. Then I can
>> fix this issue in the new helper.
> Are packet sockets really affected?
> If yes the only call site that gets this right is unix sockets?
Not affected, only code duplication. It's no harm the check the data_len
again for packet sockets, so better to unify the code and fix the issue
in one place?
>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-31 6:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-30 5:47 [PATCH] net: sock: validate data_len before allocating skb in sock_alloc_send_pskb() Jason Wang
2012-05-30 6:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-05-30 7:02 ` David Miller
2012-05-31 6:00 ` Jason Wang
2012-05-31 6:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-05-31 6:11 ` Jason Wang [this message]
2012-05-31 6:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-05-31 6:43 ` Jason Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FC70BA8.5060200@redhat.com \
--to=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).