linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/5] rtnetlink: provide permanent hardware address in RTM

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: <513ce8a1-f3ee-bd5f-a27c-86729e0536fd@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:27:14 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/5] rtnetlink: provide permanent hardware
 address in RTM_NEWLINK

On 12/10/19 1:23 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 21:22 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 09:51 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:07:53 +0100 (CET), Michal Kubecek wrote:
>>>> @@ -1822,6 +1826,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy ifla_policy[IFLA_MAX+1] = {
>>>>  	[IFLA_PROP_LIST]	= { .type = NLA_NESTED },
>>>>  	[IFLA_ALT_IFNAME]	= { .type = NLA_STRING,
>>>>  				    .len = ALTIFNAMSIZ - 1 },
>>>> +	[IFLA_PERM_ADDRESS]	= { .type = NLA_REJECT },
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>>  static const struct nla_policy ifla_info_policy[IFLA_INFO_MAX+1] = {
>>>
>>> Jiri, I just noticed ifla_policy didn't get strict_start_type set when
>>> ALT_IFNAME was added, should we add it in net? 🤔
>>
>> Does it need one? It shouldn't be used with
>> nla_parse_nested_deprecated(), and if it's used with nla_parse_nested()
>> then it doesn't matter?
> 
> No, wait. I misread, you said "when ALT_IFNAME was added" but somehow I
> managed to read "when it was added"...
> 
> So yeah, it should have one. Dunno about net, your call. I'd probably
> not bother for an NLA_REJECT attribute, there's little use including it
> anyway.
> 

It's new in net, so it has to be there not net-next.