netdev - Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes

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]

Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:20:30 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com,
	ajax@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes

David Miller wrote:
> From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:03:36 -0400
> 
>> I'm wondering if there is a way to avoid adding
>>
>> 	if (!is_valid_ether_addr(dev->dev_addr))
>> 		return -EINVAL;
>>
>> to every ethernet driver's ->open() hook.
> 
> The first idea I get is:
> 
> 1) Create netdev->validate_dev_addr().
> 
> 2) If it exists, invoke it before ->open(), abort
>    and return if any errors signaled.
> 
> etherdev init hooks up a function that does the above
> check, which allows us to avoid editing every ethernet
> driver
> 
> What do you think?

Seems sane to me.  Something like this (attached)?

	Jeff




View attachment "patch.validate-addr" of type "text/plain" (2001 bytes)