On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:18 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:18:27AM +0200, Gioh Kim wrote:
> > From: Md Haris Iqbal <haris.iqbal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > It was difficult to find out why it failed to establish RDMA
> > connection. This patch adds some messages to show which function
> > has failed why.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Md Haris Iqbal <haris.iqbal@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-srv.c | 8 +++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-srv.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-srv.c
> > index 3d09d01e34b4..df17dd4c1e28 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-srv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/rtrs/rtrs-srv.c
> > @@ -1356,8 +1356,10 @@ static struct rtrs_srv *get_or_create_srv(struct rtrs_srv_ctx *ctx,
> > * If this request is not the first connection request from the
> > * client for this session then fail and return error.
> > */
> > - if (!first_conn)
> > + if (!first_conn) {
> > + pr_err("Error: Not the first connection request for this session\n");
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENXIO);
>
> You really shouldn't be printing based on attacker controlled data..
I want to make sure I understand correctly. Did you mean that an
attacker can bombard a server with such connection request, which can
lead to uncontrolled prints, and possibly DOS?
If so, would a ratelimited print be better?
>
> Jason
