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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <574F51E4.2020504@iogearbox.net> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 23:21:40 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, dinan.gunawardena@...ronome.com Subject: Re: [RFC 03/12] net: cls_bpf: limit hardware offload by software-only flag On 06/01/2016 11:05 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:40:23 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] >>> @@ -400,8 +406,11 @@ static int cls_bpf_modify_existing(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp, >>> >>> have_exts = bpf_flags & TCA_BPF_FLAG_ACT_DIRECT; >>> } >>> + if (tb[TCA_BPF_GEN_TCA_FLAGS]) >>> + gen_flags = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_BPF_GEN_TCA_FLAGS]); >>> >>> prog->exts_integrated = have_exts; >>> + prog->gen_flags = gen_flags & CLS_BPF_SUPPORTED_GEN_FLAGS; >> >> Invalid flags should probably be rejected here with -EINVAL or something. > > Indeed, that would be more in line with what is done for "the other" > flags attribute, but not so much with how flower and u32 handles > flags. I like the stricter approach better, though, so unless someone > speaks up I'll do as you suggest. If I see this correctly, in patch 4 you're already following up on that with the tc_flags_valid() check, it's probably okay to leave it as-is then.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists