netdev - Re: [PATCH 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]

Message-ID: <20180913194116.GG4590@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:41:16 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] netlink: add ethernet address policy types

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:16:06PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 14:12 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:02:53PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 13:58 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The code looks correct to me but I have some doubts. Having a special
> > > > policy for MAC addresses may lead to adding one for IPv4 address (maybe
> > > > not, we can use NLA_U32 for them), IPv6 addresses and other data types
> > > > with fixed length. Wouldn't it be more helpful to add a variant of
> > > > NLA_BINARY (NLA_BINARY_EXACT?) which would fail/warn if attribute length
> > > > isn't equal to .len?
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I guess we could do that, and then
> > > 
> > > #define NLA_ETH_ADDR .len = ETH_ALEN, .type = NLA_BINARY_EXACT
> > > #define NLA_IP6_ADDR .len = 16, .type = NLA_BINARY_EXACT
> > > 
> > > or so?
> > 
> > Maybe rather
> > 
> >   #define NLA_ETH_ADDR NLA_BINARY_EXACT, .len = ETH_ALEN
> >   #define NLA_IP6_ADDR NLA_BINARY_EXACT, .len = sizeof(struct in6_addr)
> > 
> > so that one could write
> > 
> >   { .type = NLA_ETH_ADDR }
> 
> Yeah, that's possible. I considered it for a second, but it was slightly
> too magical for my taste :-)
> 
> Better pick a different "namespace", perhaps NLA_POLICY_ETH_ADDR or so?

What about
#define NLA_FIELD_ETH_ADDR  { .type = NLA_BINARY_EXACT, .len = ETH_ALEN }

Or even
#define NLA_FIELD_BINARY_EXACT(_len)	{ .type = NLA_BINARY_EXACT, .len = (_len) }
#define NLA_FIELD_ETH_ADDR		NLA_FIELD_BINARY_EXACT(ETH_ALEN)

So that one would just:
   [MYADDR] = NLA_FIELD_ETH_ADDR,

and if we change how we parse/validate it, users should be good
already.

  Marcelo