netdev - Re: genetlink misinterprets NEW as 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2011 02:31:17 +0100
From:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:	Ben Pfaff <blp@...ira.com>
CC:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	Netfilter Developer Mailing List 
	<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Networking Developer Mailing List 
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: genetlink misinterprets NEW as GET

On 06/01/11 18:23, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> writes:
> 
>> On 04/01/11 03:14, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> 	/* Modifiers to GET request */
>>> 	#define NLM_F_ROOT      0x100
>>> 	#define NLM_F_MATCH     0x200
>>> 	#define NLM_F_ATOMIC    0x400
>>> 	#define NLM_F_DUMP      (NLM_F_ROOT|NLM_F_MATCH)
> [...]
>>> [N.B.: I am also wondering whether
>>> 	(nlh->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_DUMP) == NLM_F_DUMP
>>> may have been desired, because NLM_F_DUMP is composed of two bits.]
>>
>> Someone may include NLM_F_ATOMIC to a dump operation, in that case the
>> checking that you propose is not valid.
> 
> Are you saying that NLM_F_MATCH and NLM_F_ATOMIC are mutually
> exclusive, and that NLM_F_ROOT|NLM_F_ATOMIC would also signal a
> dump operation?  Otherwise the test that Jan proposes looks valid
> to me.

Indeed, Jan's test is fine to fix this. Please, send a patch to Davem asap.
--
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