linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 07/10] bridge: cfm: Netlink SET configuration Interface.

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:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:51:04 +0000
From:   Henrik Bjoernlund <henrik.bjoernlund@...rochip.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <roopa@...dia.com>, <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        <jiri@...lanox.com>, <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 07/10] bridge: cfm: Netlink SET configuration
 Interface.

Thank you for the review. Comments below.

The 10/15/2020 10:34, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:54:15 +0000 Henrik Bjoernlund wrote:
> > +     [IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_MEP_CONFIG_MDLEVEL]     = {
> > +     .type = NLA_U32, .validation_type = NLA_VALIDATE_MAX, .max = 7 },
> 
>         NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U32, 7)

I will change as requested.

> 
> Also why did you keep the validation in the code in patch 4?

In patch 4 there is no CFM NETLINK so I desided to keep the validation in the
code until NETLINK was added that is now doing the check.
I this a problem?

-- 
/Henrik