| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:26:51 -0600 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: wither bounds checking for networking sysctls Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> writes: > 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. The sysctl infrastructure has some fairly simple support for doing min/max type things. So if it makes sense it isn't hard to make proc_dointvec_minmax the method and then set extra1 to point to the min and extra2 to be the max. Eric - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists