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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1536842777.4160.9.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:46:17 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] netlink: add ethernet address policy types

On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 14:24 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> 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?
> 
> Right, that sounds better. I'm afraid anything too tricky would
> inevitably trick people into using it in an unexpected way and ending up
> with very confusing error messages.

Right.

Then again though, we already have NLA_MSECS which is basically
equivalent to NLA_U64 afaict, so why not have more types?

It doesn't really cost us that much, just a few bytes in the validation?

Also, with .type = NLA_ETH_ADDR_COMPAT we could get a warning, which is
not true for just checking .len.

OTOH, you could argue that adding two types for ethernet addresses, two
for IPv6 addresses, and possibly more quickly adds up to make that "just
a few bytes" matter ...

johannes