netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/6 net-next] inet: collapse ipv4/v6 rcv_saddr

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:41:33 -0500
From:   Craig Gallek <kraigatgoog@...il.com>
To:     Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 net-next] inet: collapse ipv4/v6 rcv_saddr_equal
 functions into one

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com> wrote:
> +int inet_rcv_saddr_equal(const struct sock *sk, const struct sock *sk2,
> +                        bool match_wildcard)
> +{
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
> +       if (sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
Still wrapping my head around this, so take it with a grain of salt,
but it's not obvious to me that sk and sk2 are guaranteed to have the
same family here (or if it even matters).  Especially in the context
of the next patch which removes the bind_conflict callback...  Does
this need to be an OR check for the family of either socket?  Or is it
safe as-is because the first socket passed to this function is always
the existing one and the second one is the possible conflict socket?