netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v11 3/4] net sched actions: dump more than TCA_ACT_MAX

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]

Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 08:34:58 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, dsahern@...il.com,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com, mrv@...atatu.com,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com, alex.aring@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 3/4] net sched actions: dump more than
 TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO actions per batch

On 17-07-25 07:33 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:22:44PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:

>>> fb? bf? nbf? Please make this synced within the patchset.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ok, what do you like best? ;->
> 
> "bf"
> 

Ok.

> 
>>
>>> Don't you need to mask value with selector? In fact, I think that
>>> nla_get_bitfield_32 could just return u32 which would be (value&selector).
>>> The validation takes care of unsupported bits.
>>
>> For my use case I dont need any of the above since I dont need to
>> unset things. In other use cases you will need both selector and
>> value in case someone wants a bit to be set to 0.
>> Infact I think i will rename that helper to "nla_get_bitvalue_32"
>> to be more precise.
> 
> The getter should contain name of the type, so "nla_get_bitfield32_val"
> is much better.
> 

Actually I mispoke. I was returning the struct not the value. So
nla_get_bitfield32() is a better name.

> What if I pass val 0x1 and selector 0x0 from userspace. I don't have the
> bit selected, so you should not process it in kernel, no?
>

Yes, valid point. I am not sure - should we reject?

cheers,
jamal