linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: do not append unset Scope ID to IPv6

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:	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 22:14:22 +0100
From:	"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux@...musvillemoes.dk, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: do not append unset Scope ID to IPv6

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> I don't see an "issue" here. I.e. if the developer requested to append 's'
> to the specifier, then it's expected to dump what is in the scope id, even
> if that is 0 meaning "unset" scope.
>
> It would be principle of least surprise -- I could imagine if not dumped,
> then a developer would check the source code to find out whether he did a
> mistake or it's expected behavior, just to make sure. That's what I would
> do probably.

Showing something that's "unset" seems counter-intuitive.

The idea here is to be able to printk a sockaddr_in6, and have it show
something that looks like what the user would naturally pass to
getaddrinfo(3), which is entirely complete.

However, I could be convinced that this kind of behavior belongs in
it's own flag. Maybe I'll cook up a flag for that instead.

>
> Is this causing a _real_ issue somewhere (I couldn't parse one out of your
> commit message other than 'it would be nice to have')?

Nice to have.