netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v4 3/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers

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:	Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:06:26 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 3/3] net: reserve ports for applications using
 fixed port numbers

Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 11:37:04 you wrote:
>>>  	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct inet_skb_parm) > sizeof(dummy_skb->cb));
>>>
>>> +	sysctl_local_reserved_ports = kzalloc(65536 / 8, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +	if (!sysctl_local_reserved_ports)
>>> +		goto out;
>>> +
>> I think we should also consider the ports in ip_local_port_range,
>> since we can only reserve the ports in that range.
>>
> 
> That is subject to changes at runtime, which means we will have to readjust 
> the bitmap at runtime which introduces the need for additional synchronization 
> operations which I would rather avoid. 

Why? As long as the bitmap is global, this will not be hard.

Consider that if one user writes a port number which is beyond
the ip_local_port_range into ip_local_reserved_ports, we should
not accept this, because it doesn't make any sense. But with your
patch, we do.


> 
>>> +	{
>>> +		.procname	= "ip_local_reserved_ports",
>>> +		.data		= NULL, /* initialized in sysctl_ipv4_init */
>>> +		.maxlen		= 65536,
>>> +		.mode		= 0644,
>>> +		.proc_handler	= proc_dobitmap,
>>> +	},
>> Isn't there an off-by-one here?
>>
>> In patch 2/3, you use 0 to set the fist bit, then how about 65535 which
>> writes 65536th bit? This is beyond the range of port number.
>>
> 
> This seems fine to me, 65535 is the value used by both the port checking 
> function and the proc read/write function. And it translates indeed to  
> 65536th bit, but that is also bit 65535 if you start counting bits from 0 
> instead of 1. The usual computing/natural arithmetic confusion for the meaning 
> of first :)
> 

Oh, I see.

Thanks.

--
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