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: <20170728154547.GG1857@nanopsycho>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:45:47 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
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

Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:08:10PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>On 17-07-28 10:52 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> 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 *.
>> 
>
>This compiled - but dont have much time right now to test.
>===
>static int validate_nla_bitfield32(const struct nlattr *nla,
>                                   u32 *valid_flags_allowed)
>{
>        const struct nla_bitfield32 *bf = nla_data(nla);
>        u32 *valid_flags_mask = valid_flags_allowed;

good one :D


>
>        if (!valid_flags_allowed)
>                return -EINVAL;
>
>        /*disallow invalid selector */
>        if ((bf->selector & *valid_flags_allowed) > *valid_flags_allowed)

I don't get the ">"....
Just (bf->selector & ~*valid_flags_allowed) should be enought, no?


>                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 & ~bf->selector)
>                return -EINVAL;
>
>        return 0;
>}
>========
>
>cheers,
>jamal