netdev - Re: [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket option for a future transmit time.

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: <83af0ace-d5ed-0b82-f289-f0d2dd0e669e@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:12:39 -0800
From:   Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        jiri@...nulli.us, vinicius.gomes@...el.com,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
        henrik@...tad.us, tglx@...utronix.de, john.stultz@...aro.org,
        andre.guedes@...el.com, ivan.briano@...el.com,
        levi.pearson@...man.com, Richard Cochran <rcochran@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket option for a future
 transmit time.



On 01/18/2018 09:11 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 03:06:12PM -0800, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
>> @@ -2130,6 +2137,15 @@ int __sock_cmsg_send(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, struct cmsghdr *cmsg,
>>  		sockc->tsflags &= ~SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_RECORD_MASK;
>>  		sockc->tsflags |= tsflags;
>>  		break;
>> +	case SO_TXTIME:
>> +		if (!ns_capable(sock_net(sk)->user_ns, CAP_NET_ADMIN))
>> +			return -EPERM;
>> +		if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_TXTIME))
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>> +		if (cmsg->cmsg_len != CMSG_LEN(sizeof(ktime_t)))
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>> +		sockc->transmit_time = *(ktime_t *)CMSG_DATA(cmsg);
> 
> As pointed out in the first series' review:
> 
>   No guarantee the CMSG is properly aligned on arches that might trap
>   on unaligned access.


Yes, it will be fixed on the next version. We should probably fix the other
cases on this function as well then.

Thanks,
Jesus

> 
> Thanks,
> Richard
>