netdev - Re: [PATCH] division-by-zero in inet_csk_get

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	aarapov@...hat.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, den@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] division-by-zero in inet_csk_get_port

From: Anton Arapov <aarapov@...hat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:56:23 +0200

>   Yep, that's exactly I'm talking about. I'm sure that 
>   [...] % (high - low) [...] erroneous from the begining, because
> in such places we want to have 1 in denominator, for the cases when we
> have only one port. Because 34000 34000 in sysctl's
> ip_local_port_range means 1(one) port, not 0(zero).
> 
>   So it seems to me that we have to fix mentioned denominators in
> kernel/net to have 1, that will be correct logically. And do the
> MAX<MIN check in sysctl code.
>   From this point of view, it's best idea to have two patches: one for
> the kernel/net denominators and another one for the sysctl.c's
> function dointvec_minmax(). Because they can live independently. And
> the patch for the kernel/net will do the work at least because we
> prevent kernel trap at all.
>   
>   Dave, am I right?

Sure, two patches is fine.
-
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