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: <fd3b0c89-2475-166d-e2b8-1479af7b79bc@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 May 2019 07:36:37 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] genetlink: do not validate dump requests if
 there is no policy

On 5/2/19 7:32 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> Wouldn't it mean effecitvely ending up with only one command (in
> genetlink sense) and having to distinguish actual commands with
> atributes? Even if I wanted to have just "get" and "set" command, common
> policy wouldn't allow me to say which attributes are allowed for each of
> them.

yes, I have been stuck on that as well.

There are a number of RTA attributes that are only valid for GET
requests or only used in the response or only valid in NEW requests.
Right now there is no discriminator when validating policies and the
patch set to expose the policies to userspace

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ