netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: compare_ether_addr[

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]

Message-ID: <1336398809.3752.2313.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Mon, 07 May 2012 15:53:29 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: compare_ether_addr[_64bits]() has no ordering

On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 15:39 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
> 
> Neither compare_ether_addr() nor compare_ether_addr_64bits()
> (as it can fall back to the former) have comparison semantics
> like memcmp() where the sign of the return value indicates sort
> order. We had a bug in the wireless code due to a blind memcmp
> replacement because of this.
> 
> A cursory look suggests that the wireless bug was the only one
> due to this semantic difference.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/etherdevice.h |   11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

The right way to avoid this kind of problems is to change these
functions to return a bool


--
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