netdev - Re: [G[PATCH 1/2][ENETLINK] max cmd boundary chec

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: <1164988448.3550.4.camel@localhost>
Date:	Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:54:08 -0500
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [G[PATCH 1/2][ENETLINK] max cmd boundary chec

On Fri, 2006-01-12 at 16:16 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:

> The interface enforces a proper value by the type it accepts which
> is certainly more desireable than a runtime error. 
> If you happen
> to ignore compiler warnings, then maybe there is the problem. 

It is easy to overlook compiler warnings. However, it is not an
excuse. 

> Despite
> of all this, the patch you propose doesn't work anyway.
> 
> If you really want a runtime error you have to change the cmd field
> in genl_ops to be of larger size and then just check > MAX_ARGS in
> register_ops() rather than making get_cmd() more expensive which
> is called for every message received. I don't see any reason why
> this should be better than a compile warning.


Ok, you make a good arguement. Lets just junk this patch. 

cheers,
jamal

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html