netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] packet: always ensure that we pass hard_header_len bytes in skb

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: <20170127170320.GD25829@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:03:20 -0500
From:   Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] packet: always ensure that we pass
 hard_header_len bytes in skb_headlen() to the driver

On (01/27/17 10:28), Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Would it make sense to only do the CAP_SYS_RAWIO branch if the
> > driver declares itself to have variable length L2 headers, via, e.g.,
> > some priv flag?
> 
> At the time, the comments were not specific to AX25. Again, we should
> probably put that bypass behind a flag, enabling validating in the common case.

Just to make sure I'm on the same page as you (since you have more
history with this one..) we are going to have a priv_flags like
IFF_VAR_L2HDR which (today) would only be set for ax25, and 
we would only take the CAP_SYS_RAWIO branch for IFF_VAR_L2HDR, right?

--Sowmini