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  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, 25 Oct 2017 10:27:07 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <>
To:     Andrei Vagin <>
Cc:     NETDEV <>,
        LKML <>,
        Andrey Vagin <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] net/unix_diag: Provide UDIAG_SHOW_VFS2 attribute to fetch
 complete inode number

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 05:25:16PM -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:48:14AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > Currently unix_diag_vfs structure reports unix socket inode
> > as u32 value which of course doesn't fit to ino_t type and
> BTW: As far as I understand, it is not a problem right now, because
> get_next_ino returns int. And I'm agree that it maybe a problem in a
> future and it is better to be ready.
> > the number may be trimmed. Lets rather deprecate old UDIAG_SHOW_VFS
> > interface and provide UDIAG_SHOW_VFS2 (with one field "__zero" reserved
> > which we could extend in future).
> There is one more place where we return ino as u32:
> static int sk_diag_dump_peer(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *nlskb)
> ....
>                 return nla_put_u32(nlskb, UNIX_DIAG_PEER, ino);

Managed to miss it, thanks!

> > +struct unix_diag_vfs2 {
> > +	__u64	udiag_vfs_ino;
> > +	__u32	udiag_vfs_dev;
> > +	__u32	__zero;		/* Reserve for future use */
> How can a user understand whether this field is used or not?

Checking out if it zero or not.

> Each netlink attribute has its size in a header. Any attribute can be
> extended, and users can understand which fields are filled by
> a size of an attribute.

Well, that's correct, but it implies that any extension has different
size. I though of extending this structure (if ever needed) the way
that same attribute may carry different structures equal in size and
setting up @__zero field with some bit would help. On the other side
it become more complex than needed, so now I think I should simply
drop __zero out.

Thanks for comments, Andrew!


Powered by blists - more mailing lists