From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Qihang <q.h.hack.winter@gmail.com>, jv@jvosburgh.net, jiri@resnulli.us
Cc: andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
willemb@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Qihang Tang <q.h.hack.winter@gmail.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] bonding: reject frames with insufficient headroom in bond_header_create
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 22:02:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <willemdebruijn.kernel.2ec10017f4836@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260824021802.90369-1-q.h.hack.winter@gmail.com>
Qihang wrote:
> From: Qihang Tang <q.h.hack.winter@gmail.com>
Thanks for working on this Qihang.
Minor: a patch series should generally have a cover letter
> AF_PACKET SOCK_DGRAM sends reserve skb headroom from a snapshot of
> bond_dev->hard_header_len. A concurrent bond type change can switch the
> active slave to one with a larger hard_header_len between that snapshot
> and bond_header_create(), so the slave's create() pushes or writes past
> skb->head.
Are we certain that bond and team are the only devices that implement
header_ops->create?
> The hard_header_len snapshot series that fixed the SOCK_RAW send paths
> deferred this SOCK_DGRAM race: dev->header_ops is the stable
> bond_header_ops, so snapshotting header_ops in the caller does not help.
>
> Reject the frame if skb headroom is smaller than the active slave's
> hard_header_len, before delegating under the existing rcu_read_lock.
>
> Fixes: 950803f72547 ("bonding: fix type confusion in bond_setup_by_slave()")
What's the rationale behind blaming this SHA1?
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qihang Tang <q.h.hack.winter@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index 522eab060f9e..9ec663610dfd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -1524,10 +1524,24 @@ static int bond_header_create(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *bond_dev,
> slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> if (slave) {
> slave_ops = READ_ONCE(slave->dev->header_ops);
> - if (slave_ops && slave_ops->create)
> + if (slave_ops && slave_ops->create) {
> + unsigned int hlen = READ_ONCE(slave->dev->hard_header_len);
> +
> + /* Headroom was reserved from a snapshot of
> + * bond_dev->hard_header_len that may predate this
> + * slave (concurrent bond type change); reject if
> + * insufficient for the slave's create(), which
> + * pushes its own hlen.
> + */
> + if (skb_headroom(skb) < hlen) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> ret = slave_ops->create(skb, slave->dev,
> type, daddr, saddr, len);
> + }
Ideally we could fix this in dev_hard_header or PF_PACKET itself,
rather than in each implementation that's in scope.
But there seems no way around holding this rcu reference on the slave
device while re-checking.
> }
> +unlock:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-26 2:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-24 2:18 [PATCH net 1/2] bonding: reject frames with insufficient headroom in bond_header_create Qihang
2026-08-24 2:18 ` [PATCH net 2/2] team: reject frames with insufficient headroom in team_header_create Qihang
2026-08-26 2:02 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2026-08-27 3:13 ` [PATCH net 1/2] bonding: reject frames with insufficient headroom in bond_header_create Qihang
2026-08-27 5:10 ` Jiayuan Chen
2026-08-27 21:37 ` Willem de Bruijn
2026-08-28 1:12 ` Hangbin Liu
2026-08-28 2:43 ` Willem de Bruijn
2026-08-28 6:07 ` Qihang
2026-08-28 20:26 ` Willem de Bruijn
2026-08-27 1:10 ` Hangbin Liu
2026-08-27 3:25 ` Qihang
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=willemdebruijn.kernel.2ec10017f4836@gmail.com \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=jv@jvosburgh.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=q.h.hack.winter@gmail.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
/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