Re: [PATCH net-next v2] genetlink: do not parse attributes for families with zero maxattr

[Jiri Pirko]

Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:21:02PM CEST, jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:34:02 +0200 (CEST), Michal Kubecek wrote:
>> Commit c10e6cf85e7d ("net: genetlink: push attrbuf allocation and parsing
>> to a separate function") moved attribute buffer allocation and attribute
>> parsing from genl_family_rcv_msg_doit() into a separate function
>> genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse() which, unlike the previous code, calls
>> __nlmsg_parse() even if family->maxattr is 0 (i.e. the family does its own
>> parsing). The parser error is ignored and does not propagate out of
>> genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse() but an error message ("Unknown attribute
>> type") is set in extack and if further processing generates no error or
>> warning, it stays there and is interpreted as a warning by userspace.
>> 
>> Dumpit requests are not affected as genl_family_rcv_msg_dumpit() bypasses
>> the call of genl_family_rcv_msg_doit() if family->maxattr is zero. Do the
>> same also in genl_family_rcv_msg_doit().
>> 
>> Fixes: c10e6cf85e7d ("net: genetlink: push attrbuf allocation and parsing to a separate function")
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  net/netlink/genetlink.c | 9 +++++----
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/net/netlink/genetlink.c b/net/netlink/genetlink.c
>> index ecc2bd3e73e4..1f14e55ad3ad 100644
>> --- a/net/netlink/genetlink.c
>> +++ b/net/netlink/genetlink.c
>> @@ -639,21 +639,23 @@ static int genl_family_rcv_msg_doit(const struct genl_family *family,
>>  				    const struct genl_ops *ops,
>>  				    int hdrlen, struct net *net)
>>  {
>> -	struct nlattr **attrbuf;
>> +	struct nlattr **attrbuf = NULL;
>>  	struct genl_info info;
>>  	int err;
>>  
>>  	if (!ops->doit)
>>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>  
>> +	if (!family->maxattr)
>> +		goto no_attrs;
>>  	attrbuf = genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse(family, nlh, extack,
>>  						  ops, hdrlen,
>>  						  GENL_DONT_VALIDATE_STRICT,
>> -						  family->maxattr &&
>>  						  family->parallel_ops);
>>  	if (IS_ERR(attrbuf))
>>  		return PTR_ERR(attrbuf);
>>  
>> +no_attrs:
>
>The use of a goto statement as a replacement for an if is making me
>uncomfortable. 
>
>Looks like both callers of genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse() jump
>around it if !family->maxattr and then check the result with IS_ERR().
>
>Would it not make more sense to have genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse()
>return NULL if !family->maxattr?

Okay. Sounds fine to me.

>
>Just wondering, if you guys prefer this version I can apply..
>
>>  	info.snd_seq = nlh->nlmsg_seq;
>>  	info.snd_portid = NETLINK_CB(skb).portid;
>>  	info.nlhdr = nlh;
>> @@ -676,8 +678,7 @@ static int genl_family_rcv_msg_doit(const struct genl_family *family,
>>  		family->post_doit(ops, skb, &info);
>>  
>>  out:
>> -	genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_free(family, attrbuf,
>> -				       family->maxattr && family->parallel_ops);
>> +	genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_free(family, attrbuf, family->parallel_ops);
>>  
>>  	return err;
>>  }