LVS
lvs-devel
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [PATCH v2] ipvs:set sock send/receive buffer correctly

To: linmiaohe <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipvs:set sock send/receive buffer correctly
Cc: wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx, horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx, pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fw@xxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx, Mingfangsen <mingfangsen@xxxxxxxxxx>, liujie165@xxxxxxxxxx
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2019 21:48:00 +0300 (EEST)
        Hello,

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, linmiaohe wrote:

> From: Jie Liu <liujie165@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> If we set sysctl_wmem_max or sysctl_rmem_max larger than INT_MAX, the
> send/receive buffer of sock will be an negative value. Same as when
> the val is larger than INT_MAX/2.
> 
> Fixes: 1c003b1580e2 ("ipvs: wakeup master thread")
> Reported-by: Qiang Ning <ningqiang1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jie Liu <liujie165@xxxxxxxxxx>

        Looks good to me, thanks!

Acked-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>

> ---
>  net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> index 2526be6b3d90..760f3364d4a2 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> @@ -1278,14 +1278,22 @@ static void set_sock_size(struct sock *sk, int mode, 
> int val)
>       /* setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, &val, sizeof(val)); */
>       lock_sock(sk);
>       if (mode) {
> -             val = clamp_t(int, val, (SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF + 1) / 2,
> -                           sysctl_wmem_max);
> -             sk->sk_sndbuf = val * 2;
> +             val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_wmem_max);
> +
> +             /* Ensure val * 2 fits into an int, to prevent max_t()
> +              * from treating it as a negative value.
> +              */
> +             val = min_t(int, val, INT_MAX / 2);
> +             sk->sk_sndbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF);
>               sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_SNDBUF_LOCK;
>       } else {
> -             val = clamp_t(int, val, (SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF + 1) / 2,
> -                           sysctl_rmem_max);
> -             sk->sk_rcvbuf = val * 2;
> +             val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_rmem_max);
> +
> +             /* Ensure val * 2 fits into an int, to prevent max_t()
> +              * from treating it as a negative value.
> +              */
> +             val = min_t(int, val, INT_MAX / 2);
> +             sk->sk_rcvbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF);
>               sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK;
>       }
>       release_sock(sk);
> -- 

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>