From: "Jianhao Xu" <jianhao_xu@smail.nju.edu.cn>
To: edumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>, jhs <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
"xiyou.wangcong" <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
jiri <jiri@resnulli.us>, davem <davem@davemloft.net>,
kuba <kuba@kernel.org>, pabeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: fix potential null pointer deref
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 13:00:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <tencent_4CF4EFF2144A820D7BBECA7D@qq.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iKHfi=kQY1FC=07COJfVX4ROTnGkM_1uKvOfPfdhqt4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for your advice and sorry for the noise.
> All netdev devices have their dev->_tx allocated in netif_alloc_netdev_queues()
>
> There is absolutely no way MQ qdisc could be attached to a device that
> has failed netif_alloc_netdev_queues() step.
I believe this makes sense. But I am still a bit confused, especially after we
cross-checked the similar context of mq, mqprio, taprio. To be specific, we
cross-checked whether `mq_class_ops`, `mqprio_class_ops`, and
`taprio_class_ops` check the return value of their respective version of
`_queue_get` before dereferencing it.
--------------- ----- --------- ---------
class_ops whether check the ret value of _queue_get
mq | mqprio | taprio
--------------- ----- --------- ---------
select_queue - - -
graft no yes yes
leaf no yes yes
find yes - yes
walk - - -
dump no no no
dump_stats no no no
--------------- ----- --------- ---------
As shown in this table, `mq_leaf()` does not check the return value of
`mq__queue_get()` before using the pointer, while `mqprio_leaf()` and
`taprio_leaf()` do have such a NULL check.
FYI, here is the code of `mqprio_leaf()` and we can find the NULL check.
```
//net/sched/sch_mqprio.c
static struct Qdisc *mqprio_leaf(struct Qdisc *sch, unsigned long cl)
{
struct netdev_queue *dev_queue = mqprio_queue_get(sch, cl);
if (!dev_queue)
return NULL;
return dev_queue->qdisc_sleeping;
}
```
That is also the situation of `mq_graft()`, `mqprio_graft()` and `taprio_graft()`.
I am not sure whether it is reasonable to expect the class_ops of mq, mqprio,
and taprio to be consistent in this way. If so, does it mean that it is possible
that`mq_leaf()`and `mq_graft` may miss a check here, or mqprio, taprio have
redundant checks?
Thanks again for your time. I apologize if my question is stupid.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-11 11:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-10 2:14 Jianhao Xu
2022-06-10 7:14 ` Daniel Borkmann
[not found] ` <tencent_29981C021E6150B064C7DBA3@qq.com>
2022-06-10 8:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-11 11:00 ` Jianhao Xu [this message]
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=tencent_4CF4EFF2144A820D7BBECA7D@qq.com \
--to=jianhao_xu@smail.nju.edu.cn \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®