linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: thunderx: correct bound check in nic_config

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: <6b86fd8a-e97a-8b71-1786-50aa9e667873@verizon.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:57:58 -0400
From:	"Levin, Alexander" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
To:	Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com>,
	"Levin, Alexander" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
CC:	"sgoutham@...ium.com" <sgoutham@...ium.com>,
	"rric@...nel.org" <rric@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: thunderx: correct bound check in
 nic_config_loopback

On 07/31/2016 12:41 PM, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
> Thanks for finding.
> A much better fix would be,
> 
> -       if (lbk->vf_id > MAX_LMAC)
> +       if (lbk->vf_id >= nic->num_vf_en)
>                 return -1;
> 
> where 'num_vf_en' reflects the exact number of physical interfaces or
> LMACs on the system.

Right. I see quite a few more places that compare to MAX_LMAC vs
num_vf_en. What was the reasoning behind it then?


Thanks,
Sasha