[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15dc24fc.e7c38.1898b81ac08.Coremail.linma@zju.edu.cn>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 13:24:38 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: "Lin Ma" <linma@....edu.cn>
To: "Leon Romanovsky" <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, ast@...nel.org, martin.lau@...nel.org,
yhs@...com, void@...ifault.com, andrii@...nel.org,
houtao1@...wei.com, inwardvessel@...il.com, kuniyu@...zon.com,
songliubraving@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: Add length check for
SK_DIAG_BPF_STORAGE_REQ_MAP_FD parsing
Hello Leon,
>
> Jakub, it seems like Lin adds this check to all nla_for_each_nested() loops.
> IMHO, the better change will be to change nla_for_each_nested() skip empty/not valid NLAs.
>
> Thanks
I guess you just get these fixes misunderstood. I do not add the nla_len check
to **all nla_for_each_nested** :(. I only add checks to those who do not access
the attributes without verifying the length, which is buggy.
The others, either do a similar nla_len check already or just do nla_validate
somewhere else. That is to say, they **validate** the relevant attributes.
In short, nla_for_each_nested is just a loop macro that iterates the nlattrs,
like nla_for_each macro. It is weird for them to do nlattr validation as there
could have already been a call to nla_validate to ensure those attributes are
correct. That is, for those who do not, a simple nla_len check is the simplest
and most efficient choice.
Regards
Lin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists