On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:12:44PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_conntrack_l3proto_ipv4.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_conntrack_l3proto_ipv4.c
> @@ -59,8 +59,10 @@ static bool ipv4_invert_tuple(struct nf_conntrack_tuple
> *tuple,
> static int ipv4_print_tuple(struct seq_file *s,
> const struct nf_conntrack_tuple *tuple)
> {
> - return seq_printf(s, "src=%pI4 dst=%pI4 ",
> - &tuple->src.u3.ip, &tuple->dst.u3.ip);
> + seq_printf(s, "src=%pI4 dst=%pI4 ",
> + &tuple->src.u3.ip, &tuple->dst.u3.ip);
> +
> + return seq_overflow(s);
> }
I'm not at all sure we want ->print_tuple() to return anything;
if we *really* want to check overflow and skip some expensive
output, we can bloody well do that in callers of print_tuple().
> @@ -104,10 +104,10 @@ static int ct_show_secctx(struct seq_file *s, const
> struct nf_conn *ct)
> if (ret)
> return 0;
>
> - ret = seq_printf(s, "secctx=%s ", secctx);
> + seq_printf(s, "secctx=%s ", secctx);
>
> security_release_secctx(secctx, len);
> - return ret;
> + return seq_overflow(s);
> }
Definitely broken.
> static inline int ct_show_secctx(struct seq_file *s, const struct nf_conn
> *ct)
> @@ -141,10 +141,11 @@ static int ct_seq_show(struct seq_file *s, void *v)
> NF_CT_ASSERT(l4proto);
>
> ret = -ENOSPC;
> - if (seq_printf(s, "%-8s %u %ld ",
> - l4proto->name, nf_ct_protonum(ct),
> - timer_pending(&ct->timeout)
> - ? (long)(ct->timeout.expires - jiffies)/HZ : 0) != 0)
> + seq_printf(s, "%-8s %u %ld ",
> + l4proto->name, nf_ct_protonum(ct),
> + timer_pending(&ct->timeout)
> + ? (long)(ct->timeout.expires - jiffies)/HZ : 0);
> + if (seq_overflow(s))
> goto release;
>
> if (l4proto->print_conntrack && l4proto->print_conntrack(s, ct))
> @@ -154,35 +155,44 @@ static int ct_seq_show(struct seq_file *s, void *v)
> l3proto, l4proto))
> goto release;
>
> - if (seq_print_acct(s, ct, IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL))
> + seq_print_acct(s, ct, IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL);
> + if (seq_overflow(s))
> goto release;
>
> - if (!(test_bit(IPS_SEEN_REPLY_BIT, &ct->status)))
> - if (seq_printf(s, "[UNREPLIED] "))
> + if (!(test_bit(IPS_SEEN_REPLY_BIT, &ct->status))) {
> + seq_printf(s, "[UNREPLIED] ");
> + if (seq_overflow(s))
> goto release;
> + }
>
> if (print_tuple(s, &ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_REPLY].tuple,
> l3proto, l4proto))
> goto release;
>
> - if (seq_print_acct(s, ct, IP_CT_DIR_REPLY))
> + seq_print_acct(s, ct, IP_CT_DIR_REPLY);
> + if (seq_overflow(s))
> goto release;
>
> - if (test_bit(IPS_ASSURED_BIT, &ct->status))
> - if (seq_printf(s, "[ASSURED] "))
> + if (test_bit(IPS_ASSURED_BIT, &ct->status)) {
> + seq_printf(s, "[ASSURED] ");
> + if (seq_overflow(s))
> goto release;
> + }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_MARK
> - if (seq_printf(s, "mark=%u ", ct->mark))
> + seq_printf(s, "mark=%u ", ct->mark);
> + if (seq_overflow(s))
> goto release;
> #endif
>
> if (ct_show_secctx(s, ct))
> goto release;
>
> - if (seq_printf(s, "use=%u\n", atomic_read(&ct->ct_general.use)))
> + seq_printf(s, "use=%u\n", atomic_read(&ct->ct_general.use));
> + if (seq_overflow(s))
> goto release;
> ret = 0;
> +
> release:
> nf_ct_put(ct);
> return ret;
All this "goto release on overflow" business here is pointless, AFAICS.
In any case, returning non-zero in those cases is a bug.
> @@ -297,7 +307,9 @@ static int exp_seq_show(struct seq_file *s, void *v)
> __nf_ct_l3proto_find(exp->tuple.src.l3num),
> __nf_ct_l4proto_find(exp->tuple.src.l3num,
> exp->tuple.dst.protonum));
> - return seq_putc(s, '\n');
> + seq_putc(s, '\n');
> +
> + return seq_overflow(s);
> }
Broken.
The rest is no better, AFAICS. Joe, you are doing it from the wrong end;
the right approach would be something like "make ->print_tuple() return
void", etc. As it is, you are just providing a lousy pattern to anybody
reading that. The last thing we want is people blindly copying these
bugs just because they'd seen a "proper" way of producing that kind of
broken behaviour. Monkey see, monkey do and all such...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
