netdev - Re: [PATCH net] rtnetlink: ndo_dflt_fdb

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]

Date:	Fri, 31 May 2013 01:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	alanr@...x.sh
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	vyasevic@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] rtnetlink: ndo_dflt_fdb_del() never works

From: Alan Robertson <alanr@...x.sh>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:01:55 -0600

> ndo_dflt_fdb_del is checking for a condition which is opposite that
> which ndo_dflt_fdb_add enforces.  ndo_dflt_fdb_add declares an error
> if (ndm->ndm_state && !(ndm->ndm_state) & NUD_PERMANENT)) - that is, if the
> entry is static.  This is consistent with the failure error message.
> 
> On the other hand, ndo_dflt_del() declares an error
> if (ndm_state & NUD_PERMANENT) - which is inconsistent with the add
> precondition, and inconsistent with its failure message text.
> As it is now, you can't delete any entry which add allows to be added -
> so entry deletion always fails.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alan Robertson <alanr@...x.sh>

What about the ->ndm_state part of the add() test?  Why not include
that in the del() check?

--
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