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

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]

Message-Id: <20071023.180744.115914004.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	jeff@...zik.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com,
	ajax@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes

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?
-
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/