netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 iproute2 net-next] tc: m_mirred: Fix parsing of 'index' optional argument

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: <20161027220040.4e109d99@halley>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:00:40 +0300
From:   Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To:     Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 iproute2 net-next] tc: m_mirred: Fix parsing of
 'index' optional argument

Hi,

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:56:43 +0200 Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> wrote:
> > Actual code, since first committed, attempts to parse "index" as 1st
> > argument (without success), see parse_mirred():
> > 
> > 	if (matches(*argv, "egress") == 0 || matches(*argv, "index") == 0) {
> > 		int ret = parse_egress(a, &argc, &argv, tca_id, n);  
> 
> Oh, I missed that! But to me this looks like the author wanted to avoid
> erroring out with "mirred option not supported index" in case of missing
> 'egress' keyword.

Could be; Not that it matters much, but evidence in parse_egress() shows
that it DOES try to parse and store "index" EVEN if no "egress" seen YET.

> Yeah, I'd go with least effort approach, i.e. not adding any additional
> flexibility in arg parsing. Since the docs never stated otherwise, I
> don't think it was a real issue for users.

Sure. It never really worked ;)

If we go that way, then some code in parse_direction needs to be
eliminated/restructured; So we'll end up with:
 - less code in parse_direction
 - not adding any additional flexibility in arg parsing
 - bigger diff than suggested

Stephen, Jamal, do you have any preference here?