netdev - Re: [G[PATCH 1/2][ENETLINK] max cmd boundary chec

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 1 Dec 2006 16:16:57 +0100
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [G[PATCH 1/2][ENETLINK] max cmd boundary chec

* jamal <hadi@...erus.ca> 2006-12-01 09:52
> You cannot have more than 256 commands because 0x138 and 0x38 are
> treated as the same command. So does 0x238, 0x1138...
> It is useless/unneeded if the register ops will always see the chopped
> value. Is this so?

The interface enforces a proper value by the type it accepts which
is certainly more desireable than a runtime error. If you happen
to ignore compiler warnings, then maybe there is the problem. Despite
of all this, the patch you propose doesn't work anyway.

If you really want a runtime error you have to change the cmd field
in genl_ops to be of larger size and then just check > MAX_ARGS in
register_ops() rather than making get_cmd() more expensive which
is called for every message received. I don't see any reason why
this should be better than a compile warning.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html