netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] em_canid: Ematch rule to match CAN frames according to their identifiers

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

Message-ID: <1341238375.11881.16.camel@lolumad>
Date:	Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:12:55 +0200
From:	Rostislav Lisovy <lisovy@...il.com>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	lartc@...r.kernel.org, pisa@....felk.cvut.cz, sojkam1@....cvut.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] em_canid: Ematch rule to match CAN frames
 according to their identifiers

Hello Oliver;

On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 17:44 +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: 
> What about a zero length check here?
> 
> 	if (!len)
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 

> 
> The length could alternatively be checked here too
> 
> http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4.4/net/sched/ematch.c#L235
> 
> if em->ops->datalen is set.
> 
> But here's no
> 
> 	.datalen = sizeof(struct can_filter),
> 
> defined, right?
> 

The main reason I didn't define the tcf_ematch_ops.datalen field is
because the documentation says it is "length of expected configuration
data" (not "minimal").
For the sake of possible future changes of the built-in length checking,
I will do the check by myself -- I will add the zero-length check (at
least all checks will be at the same place).

Regards;
Rostislav


--
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