netdev - Re: question about nla_nest

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:18:35 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
To:	Ben Pfaff <blp@...stanford.edu>
Cc:	hadi@...erus.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: question about nla_nest_cancel

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Ben Pfaff wrote:

> Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk> writes:
> 
> > I find numerous occurrences of code like the following, in which nest ends 
> > up with the value NULL and then nla_nest_cancel is called with nest as the 
> > second argument.  But nla_nest_cancel just calls nlmsg_trim with the same 
> > second argument, and nlmsg_trim does nothing if its second argument is 
> > NULL.  Is there any reason to keep these calls?
> 
> I think that you are missing that NLA_PUT() contains an internal
> "goto nla_put_failure;".  If that branch is taken, then
> nla_nest_cancel() trims off the nested attribute.  So just
> removing the call to nla_nest_cancel() would change behavior in
> that case.

Indeed.  Thank you for the explanation.

julia
--
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