netdev - Re: [PATCH] bridge: netlink: check vlan_default

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: <1494859105.25314.7.camel@bisdn.de>
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2017 16:38:25 +0200
From:   Tobias Jungel <tobias.jungel@...dn.de>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: netlink: check vlan_default_pvid range

On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 16:31 +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 5/15/17 4:29 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > On 5/15/17 4:21 PM, Tobias Jungel wrote:
> > > Thanks Sabrina and Nik.
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 14:01 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > > Hi Tobias,
> > > > 
> > > > 2017-05-15, 13:08:19 +0200, Tobias Jungel wrote:
> > > > > Currently it is allowed to set the default pvid of a bridge
> > > > > to a
> > > > > value
> > > > > above VLAN_VID_MASK (0xfff). This patch checks the passed
> > > > > pvid and
> > > > > disables the pvid in case it is out of bounds.
> > > > 
> > > > Could we return an error (-EINVAL) to userspace
> > > > instead?  Silently
> > > > disabling the feature seems confusing to me.  This would
> > > > probably be
> > > > better in br_validate() (like the IFLA_BR_VLAN_PROTOCOL check),
> > > > since
> > > > there's already such a check when setting default_pvid from
> > > > sysfs (in
> > > > br_vlan_set_default_pvid()).
> > > 
> > > I will send a v2 that returns -EINVAL. br_validate seems to be
> > > the
> > > wrong place to me since it deals with the bridge ports.
> > > 
> > 
> > Could you elaborate ? br_validate should be called for all and is a
> > very good
> > suggestion.
> 
> I meant for the bridge newlink/changelink of course. :-)

Sorry had a wrong understanding of that function. Will come up with a
v3 later.

> 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reproduce by calling:
> > > > > 
> > > > > [root@...t ~]# ip l a type bridge
> > > > > [root@...t ~]# ip l a type dummy
> > > > > [root@...t ~]# ip l s bridge0 type bridge vlan_filtering 1
> > > > > [root@...t ~]# ip l s bridge0 type bridge vlan_default_pvid
> > > > > 9999
> > > > > [root@...t ~]# ip l s dummy0 master bridge0
> > > > > [root@...t ~]# bridge vlan
> > > > > port    vlan ids
> > > > > bridge0     9999 PVID Egress Untagged
> > > > > 
> > > > > dummy0     9999 PVID Egress Untagged
> > > > 
> > > > You'll also need to add a Signed-off-by, and a Fixes tag would
> > > > be
> > > > nice.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Right, will add this as well.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> 
>