Hello, On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 02:48:54 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 08:10:27AM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > > > Hello Al, > > > > and thank you very much for your patches. > > Before committing them, do you mind if we reword the subject by substituting > > "batman" with "batman-adv"? > > No problem... > > > Moreover, patch 3/4, fixes the memcpy() casting too other than the endianess > > 4/4, actually. > > > stuff. We would prefer to have two different patches for fixing those two > > issues. What about splitting it and resending them? > > Can do; I've just grepped for memcpy() in there, to see if there are other > places like that.
Thanks!
> Haven't found any, but
> * you do an awful lot of GFP_ATOMIC allocations and those can and
> do fail from time to time. What's worse, you ignore some of those failures -
> e.g. failing allocation in orig_hash_{add,del}_if() will be ignored by the
> caller. I haven't looked into that code enough to tell if it could be
> exploited, but I really don't like the look of it...
> * orig_node_add_if() leaves junk in added array elements. You do
> kmalloc() followed by memcpy(), but leave the last element uninitialized.
> May be safe if you assign it soon enough, but I'd suggest checking that.
> * orig_node_del_if() looks odd - it removes element #hard_iface->if_num
> and shifts all subsequent ones down; then it renumbers interfaces to match
> that. So far, so good, and there's even a plausible comment about locking:
> /* renumber remaining batman interfaces _inside_ of orig_hash_lock */
> except that no such lock exists since commit d007260. What protects us from
> the obvious race in there?
Thank you very much for your analysis. I really appreciated it!
I'm CCing our mailing list so that other people can comment on it.
Cheers,
--
Antonio Quartulli
..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara
pgprdXVZ1yckh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
