netdev - Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce john-users owl-users popa3d-users / xvendor oss-security / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Order Openwall GNU/*/Linux 2.0 on a CD with delivery worldwide

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

Date:	Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:47:55 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes

Kok, Auke wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
>> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:20:30 -0400
>>
>>> David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
>>>> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:03:36 -0400
>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if there is a way to avoid adding
>>>>>
>>>>> 	if (!is_valid_ether_addr(dev->dev_addr))
>>>>> 		return -EINVAL;
>>>>>
>>>>> to every ethernet driver's ->open() hook.
>>>> The first idea I get is:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Create netdev->validate_dev_addr().
>>>>
>>>> 2) If it exists, invoke it before ->open(), abort
>>>>    and return if any errors signaled.
>>>>
>>>> etherdev init hooks up a function that does the above
>>>> check, which allows us to avoid editing every ethernet
>>>> driver
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>> Seems sane to me.  Something like this (attached)?
>> Looks great:
>>
>> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> 
> I like it.
> 
> Should I start sending patches to remove the checks from e1000/e1000e/ixgb/ixgbe
> already (to David, I assume?)?

Send the patches to me like normal...

	Jeff



-
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