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]

Message-ID: <4e835ac7-0700-726d-7f6c-6e584ff073eb@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:52:02 -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 17-07-28 10:12 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 03:41:44PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
[..]
> 
> Looks like a big mess to be honest. Mixing up u32* u32 void*. I don't
> understand ****. Would be probably good to first apply my review comment
> on the function itselt, then to add the checks :)
> 

I havent even compiled/test that Jiri.
Just ignore the void * and assume it is a u32 *.

I am trying to avoid doing unlucky number 13 patch.
So feedback on this is good. Just look at what it is disallowing
first.

back later.

cheers,
jamal

> 
>> I can think of.
>>
>> static int validate_nla_bitfield32(const struct nlattr *nla,
>>                                     void *valid_flags_allowed)
>> {
>>         const struct nla_bitfield32 *bf = nla_data(nla);
>>         u32 *valid_flags_mask = valid_flags_allowed;
>>
>>         if (!valid_flags_allowed)
>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>         /*disallow invalid selector */
>>         if ((bf->selector & valid_flags_allowed) >*valid_flags_allowed)
>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>         /*disallow invalid bit values */
>>         if (bf->value & ~*valid_flags_mask)
>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>         /*disallow valid bit values that are not selected*/
>>         if (bf->value & ~nbf->selector)
>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>
>>         return 0;
>> }
>>
>> cheers,
>> jamal