[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230723055820-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 06:02:16 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Lin Ma <linma@....edu.cn>
Cc: jasowang@...hat.com, xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] vdpa: Complement vdpa_nl_policy for nlattr length
check
On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 05:48:46PM +0800, Lin Ma wrote:
>
> > Sure, that is another undergoing task I'm working on. If the nlattr is parsed with
> > NL_VALIDATE_UNSPEC, any forgotten nlattr will be rejected, therefore (which is the default
> > for modern nla_parse).
>
> For the general netlink interface, the deciding flag should be genl_ops.validate defined in
> each ops. The default validate flag is strict, while the developer can overwrite the flag
> with GENL_DONT_VALIDATE_STRICT to ease the validation. That is to say, safer code should
> enforce NL_VALIDATE_STRICT by not overwriting the validate flag.
>
> Regrads
> Lin
Oh I see.
It started here:
commit 33b347503f014ebf76257327cbc7001c6b721956
Author: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
Date: Tue Jan 5 12:32:00 2021 +0200
vdpa: Define vdpa mgmt device, ops and a netlink interface
which did:
+ .validate = GENL_DONT_VALIDATE_STRICT | GENL_DONT_VALIDATE_DUMP,
which was most likely just a copy paste from somewhere, right Parav?
and then everyone kept copying this around.
Parav, Eli can we drop these? There's a tiny chance of breaking something
but I feel there aren't that many users outside mlx5 yet, so if you
guys can test on mlx5 and confirm no breakage, I think we are good.
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists