linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove broken netfilter binary sysctls from bridging code

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]

Message-ID: <20070925091203.371879e2@fujitsu-loaner>
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:12:03 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove broken netfilter binary sysctls from bridging
 code

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:07:24 +0200
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:

> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:55:38 +0200
> > Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >>>A really good fix would be to remove the binary side and then to
> >>>modify brnf_sysctl_call_tables to allocate a temporary ctl_table
> >>>and integer on the stack and only set ctl->data after we have
> >>>normalized the written value.  But since in practice nothing cares
> >>>about the race a better fix probably isn't worth it.
> >>
> >>
> >>I seem to be missing something, the entire brnf_sysctl_call_tables
> >>thing looks purely cosmetic to me, wouldn't it be better to simply
> >>remove it?
> > 
> > 
> > I agree, removing seems like a better option.  But probably need to
> > go through a 3-6mo warning period, since sysctl's are technically
> > an API.
> 
> 
> I meant removing brnf_sysctl_call_tables function, not the sysctls
> themselves, all it does is change values != 0 to 1. Or did you
> actually mean that something in userspace might depend on reading
> back the value 1 after writing a value != 0?

I was going farther, because don't really see the value of having
a sysctl for this. It seems better to just not load filters if
they aren't going to be used. Having another enable/disable hook
just adds needless complexity.
-
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/