linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] netlink: add validation of NLA_F

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:   Thu, 2 May 2019 07:40:25 -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 3/3] netlink: add validation of NLA_F_NESTED flag

On 5/2/19 7:14 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
>>> @@ -1132,6 +1136,10 @@ static inline int nla_parse_nested(struct nlattr *tb[], int maxtype,
>>>  				   const struct nla_policy *policy,
>>>  				   struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>>>  {
>>> +	if (!(nla->nla_type & NLA_F_NESTED)) {
>>> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, nla, "nested attribute expected");
>>
>> Maybe reword that to say "NLA_F_NESTED is missing" or so? The "nested
>> attribute expected" could result in a lot of headscratching (without
>> looking at the code) because it looks nested if you do nla_nest_start()
>> etc.
> 
> How about "NLA_F_NESTED is missing" and "NLA_F_NESTED not expected"?
> 

That is much better to me.