netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Add compat ioctl support for the ipv4 multicast ioctl SIOCGETSGCNT

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:	Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:15:40 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Add compat ioctl support for the ipv4 multicast ioctl SIOCGETSGCNT

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:

> On Sunday 30 January 2011 03:15:56 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> A trivial compact ioctl implementation would conflict with:
>> SIOCAX25ADDUID
>> SIOCAIPXPRISLT
>> SIOCGETSGCNT_IN6
>> SIOCGETSGCNT
>> SIOCRSSCAUSE
>> SIOCX25SSUBSCRIP
>> SIOCX25SDTEFACILITIES
>
> Since you have compiled the list, did you see if these are all handled
> compatible, or would it make sense to create patches for the other
> protocols as well, to handle them individually?

I didn't look.  I had a specific pre-existing application that didn't
work, and those ioctls meant the existing solutions for network compat
ioctls wouldn't work and the infrastructure needed fixing.

>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> +static int compat_raw_ioctl(struct sock *sk, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>> +{
>> +	switch (cmd) {
>> +	case SIOCOUTQ:
>> +	case SIOCINQ:
>> +		return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
>
> I would have suggested doing
>
> 	return raw_ioctl(sk, cmd, (unsigned long)compat_ptr(arg));
>
> here, but returning -ENOIOCTLCMD is equivalent and correct. Your solution
> is slightly more compact, the other one would be slightly faster.

Correct and maintainable is fine by me.

Right now my network stack performance problems are almost all rtnl_lock
hold time problems.

Eric
--
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