netdev - Re: dn_neigh_table vs pneigh_lookup/pneigh

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071220112420.GA26048@fogou.chygwyn.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:24:20 +0000
From:	Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Patrick Caulfield <patrick@...epenguin.com>,
	linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: dn_neigh_table vs pneigh_lookup/pneigh_delete

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:11:34PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Hi
> 
> The pneigh_lookup/delete silently concerns, that the 
> key_len of the table is more that 4 bytes. Look:
> 
>          u32 hash_val = *(u32 *)(pkey + key_len - 4);
> 
> The hash_val for the proxy neighbor entry is four last bytes
> from the pkey.
> 
> But the dn_neigh_tables' key_len is sizeof(__le16), that is 2,
> so setting (via netlink) the proxy neighbor entry for decnet 
> will cause this entry to reside in arbitrary hash chain.
> 
> Is this too bad for decnet?
> 
> Thanks,
> Pavel
The pneigh code is never used in DECnet, we only use the "normal"
part of the neigh code where the hash function was changed so that
it can be defined for each protocol (and thus doesn't suffer from
this problem)

Steve.
--
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