netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/2] netlink: add NLA_U8

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: <c9bbb3a1-4a94-fece-478f-7e347734ddd2@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:15:29 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, johannes@...solutions.net
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, j@...fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] netlink: add NLA_U8_BUGGY attribute type

On 12/5/17 10:40 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:30:10 +0100
> 
>> On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 11:41 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no reasonable interpretation for what that application is
>>> doing, so I think we can safely call that case as buggy.
>>>
>>> We are only trying to handle the situation where a U8 attribute
>>> is presented as a bonafide U32 or a correct U8.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Well the application is buggy, but we don't really know in what way?
>> Perhaps somebody even did the equivalent of
>>     nla_put_u32(ATTR, cpu_to_le32(x))
>> when they noticed it was broken on BE, and end up with a similar case
>> as I had above.
>>
>> I don't think there's a good solution to this, applications must be
>> fixed anyhow. I'm just saying that I'd save the extra code and stay
>> compatible with applications as written today, even if they're now
>> broken on BE - and rely on the warning to fix it. Trying to fix it up
>> seems to have the potential to just break something else.

+1

> 
> You might be right.
> 
> Ok let's just go with the warning + existing behavior for now.

Is the patch I sent as an attachment good or should I re-send
standalone? (don't see it in patchwork)