netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Add the sanity check for ipvlan mode

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+6hz4qiUVLJDiF-sX8ckcMm-wq4=Z-3HGPCXXsAdqNbugzb5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:06:44 +0800
From:   Feng Gao <gfree.wind@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Add the sanity check for
 ipvlan mode

Hi David & Mahesh,

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:08 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, I didn't find the function "ipvlan_nl_validate" during reading
the ipvlan codes.

Regards
Feng