[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20161128.150808.1499148970176655699.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 15:08:08 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: maheshb@...gle.com
Cc: fgao@...ai8.com, edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
gfree.wind@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Add the sanity check for
ipvlan mode
From: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:02:45 -0800
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:23 AM, <fgao@...ai8.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
>>
>> The ipvlan mode variable "nval" is from userspace, so the ipvlan codes
>> should check if the mode variable "nval" is valid.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@...ai8.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_
>> main.c
>> index ab90b22..537b5a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
>> @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ static int ipvlan_set_port_mode(struct ipvl_port *port,
>> u16 nval)
>> struct net_device *mdev = port->dev;
>> int err = 0;
>>
>> + if (nval >= IPVLAN_MODE_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>>
> I'm curious to know how you encountered this issue? The values are
> validated in ipvlan_nl_validate() and it should fail at that time itself.
I'm not applying this without at least a better explanation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists