linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net: sched: act_api: size 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260205221155.na4qrsuuuzpqo4hg@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 00:11:55 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Paul Moses <p@....org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
	horms@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: sched: act_api: size RTM_GETACTION reply by
 fill size

On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 04:30:06PM -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> Yes, this kinda answers the question: we are looking for something
> that serves as an upper bound for the control list.
> Does the standard explicitly specify that it is arbitrary - or is that
> deduced by lack of mention of an upper bound.
> Either way imo  we need to have a "reasonable" upper bound in the code.
> 
> cheers,
> jamal

It doesn't specifically use the word "arbitrary" but it describes a
mechanism to indicate what the arbitrarily chosen upper bound is, if
there is one.

Specifically, clause 12.31.1.4 talks of a managed object for PSFP called
SupportedListMax. This is supposed to report the maximum values that the
AdminControlListLength and OperControlListLength parameters can hold in
this particular implementation.

There is no intrinsic or universally reasonable limit on their count.
It depends on the required schedule complexity.