From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] team: avoid adding twice the same option to the
 event list
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 21:53:38 +0200
Message-ID: <1523822018.2710.9.camel@redhat.com>
References: <0e295e62358a68b22c646adece4272a9bd0473f8.1523620752.git.pabeni@redhat.com>
         <20180413.140705.1693433489799741559.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, jiri@resnulli.us
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:40180 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752434AbeDOTxn (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:53:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20180413.140705.1693433489799741559.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 14:07 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:59:25 +0200
> 
> > When parsing the options provided by the user space,
> > team_nl_cmd_options_set() insert them in a temporary list to send
> > multiple events with a single message.
> > While each option's attribute is correctly validated, the code does
> > not check for duplicate entries before inserting into the event
> > list.
> > 
> > Exploiting the above, the syzbot was able to trigger the following
> > splat:
>  ...
> > This changeset addresses the avoiding list_add() if the current
> > option is already present in the event list.
> > 
> > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+4d4af685432dc0e56c91@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
> > Fixes: 2fcdb2c9e659 ("team: allow to send multiple set events in one message")
> 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> It's too bad that the tmp list entries don't get marked as they are
> added, or get unlinked by the list processor.  Either scheme would
> make the "already added" test a lot simpler.

Yes, I considered both changes, but than opted for this solution,
beliving it would be less invasive and more suitable for -net.

Cheers,

Paolo