linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] parse_table() earlier check.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:29:46 +0400
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] parse_table() earlier check.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:37:45PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> --- linux-2.6.22-orig/kernel/sysctl.c
> +++ linux-2.6.22/kernel/sysctl.c
> @@ -1190,9 +1190,9 @@
>  		return -ENOTDIR;
>  	if (get_user(n, name))
>  		return -EFAULT;
> +	if (!n)
> +		return -ENOTDIR;
>  	for ( ; table->ctl_name || table->procname; table++) {
> -		if (!table->ctl_name)
> -			continue;
>  		if (n == table->ctl_name) {
>  			int error;
>  			if (table->child) {

I don't like this. For one, it destroy some symmetry in sysctl table
walking code, where sysctl(2) code checks for valid ->ctl_name, and proc
code checks for valid ->procname and both have same for loop. For two,
nobody uses sysctl(2), sysctl aren't big, so this optimization is
unneeded.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/