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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:04:22 -0700
From:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	jeff@...zik.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.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 22:20:30 -0400
> 
>> 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)?
> 
> Looks great:
> 
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>

I like it.

Should I start sending patches to remove the checks from e1000/e1000e/ixgb/ixgbe
already (to David, I assume?)?

Auke
-
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