netdev - Re: Is ndo_do_ioctl still acceptable?

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]

Message-ID: <CAHmME9pHg7iAorj22DvWKhrH4HXPne7ZBAr7X1wyR7VEkJfk8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:19:06 +0100
From:	"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is ndo_do_ioctl still acceptable?

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
<ahferroin7@...il.com> wrote:
>>
> On the other hand, based on what you are saying about your device, it sounds
> like you are working on some kind of cryptographically secured (either
> authenticated or encrypted or both) tunnel, in which case the fact that
> security is easier to handle with netlink than ioctls becomes important.  If
> you can't ensure security of the endpoint configuration, you can't ensure
> security of the tunnel itself.

Could you substantiate these claims that "security is easier to handle
with netlink". I've never heard this and I don't know why it'd be the
case. Are you referring to the fact that the copy_to/from_user dance
of ioctl opens up more potential vulnerabilities than netlink's
abstracted validation? Or something else? Just confused here...
--
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