Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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)
> 



  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