netdev - Re: [RFC v2 2/2] netlink: add ethernet address policy types

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:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:49:58 +0200
From:   Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/2] netlink: add ethernet address policy types

On 9/12/2018 10:36 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
>
> Commonly, ethernet addresses are just using a policy of
> 	{ .len = ETH_ALEN }
> which leaves userspace free to send more data than it should,
> which may hide bugs.
>
> Introduce NLA_ETH_ADDR which checks for exact size, and rejects
> the attribute if the length isn't ETH_ALEN.
>
> Also add NLA_ETH_ADDR_COMPAT which can be used in place of the
> policy above, but will, in addition, warn on an address that's
> too long.

Not sure if this is correctly described here. It seems longer addresses 
are not rejected, but only result in a warning message. I guess the 
problem is in the reference to the "policy above" ;-)

Regards,
Arend