netdev - Re: wither bounds checking for networking sysctls

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]

Message-ID: <46D84C8D.4070009@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:14:53 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: wither bounds checking for networking sysctls

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:09:17 -0700
> Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>While messing about with "sysctl_tcp_rto_min" I went back and forth a 
>>bit as to whether there should have been bounds checking (as did some of 
>>the folks who did some internal review for me).  That leads to the 
>>question - is it considered worthwhile to add a bit more bounds checking 
>>to sundry networking sysctls?
>>
>>rick jones
> 
> 
> IMHO As long as the any value from sysctl doesn't crash kernel, we
> should let it go. Enforcing RFC policy or inter-dependencies seems
> likes a useless exercise.

I was thinking more along the lines of more fundamental things - like 
precluding negative values when something is clearly a positive.

rick jones
-
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