Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] netvm: check for page == NULL when propogating the skb->pfmemalloc flag

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>]

On 08/13/2012 03:47 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Resending to correct Jeremy's address.
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:50:46PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:55:55 +0100
>>
>>> Commit [c48a11c7: netvm: propagate page->pfmemalloc to skb] is responsible
>>> for the following bug triggered by a xen network driver
>>  ...
>>> The problem is that the xenfront driver is passing a NULL page to
>>> __skb_fill_page_desc() which was unexpected. This patch checks that
>>> there is a page before dereferencing.
>>>
>>> Reported-and-Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
>> That call to __skb_fill_page_desc() in xen-netfront.c looks completely bogus.
>> It's the only driver passing NULL here.
>>
>> That whole song and dance figuring out what to do with the head
>> fragment page, depending upon whether the length is greater than the
>> RX_COPY_THRESHOLD, is completely unnecessary.
>>
>> Just use something like a call to __pskb_pull_tail(skb, len) and all
>> that other crap around that area can simply be deleted.
> I looked at this for a while but I did not see how __pskb_pull_tail()
> could be used sensibly but I'm simily not familiar with writing network
> device drivers or Xen.
>
> This messing with RX_COPY_THRESHOLD seems to be related to how the frontend
> and backend communicate (maybe some fixed limitation of the xenbus). The
> existing code looks like it is trying to take the fragments received and
> pass them straight to the backend without copying by passing the fragments
> to the backend without copying. I worry that if I try converting this to
> __pskb_pull_tail() that it would either hit the limitation of xenbus or
> introduce copying where it is not wanted.
>
> I'm going to have to punt this to Jeremy and the other Xen folk as I'm not
> sure what the original intention was and I don't have a Xen setup anywhere
> to test any patch. Jeremy, xen folk? 

It's been a while since I've looked at that stuff, but as I remember,
the issue is that since the packet ring memory is shared with another
domain which may be untrustworthy, we want to make copies of the headers
before making any decisions based on them so that the other domain can't
change them after header processing but before they're actually sent. 
(The packet payload is considered less important, but of course the same
issue applies if you're using some kind of content-aware packet filter.)

So that's the rationale for always copying RX_COPY_THRESHOLD, even if
the packet is larger than that amount.  As far as I know, changing this
behaviour wouldn't break the ring protocol, but it does introduce a
potential security issue.

    J


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel