netdev - Re: [bpf PATCH 3/3] bpf: test_maps, only support ESTABLISHED socks

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: <ee1a66e1-5edd-c49e-d62b-8d1a7546a7de@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 21:38:05 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
Cc:     edumazet@...gle.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [bpf PATCH 3/3] bpf: test_maps, only support ESTABLISHED socks

On 09/17/2018 02:21 PM, Y Song wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:33 AM John Fastabend
> <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ensure that sockets added to a sock{map|hash} that is not in the
>> ESTABLISHED state is rejected.
>>
>> Fixes: 1aa12bdf1bfb ("bpf: sockmap, add sock close() hook to remove socks")
>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c |   10 +++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
>> index 6f54f84..0f2090f 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
>> @@ -580,7 +580,11 @@ static void test_sockmap(int tasks, void *data)
>>         /* Test update without programs */
>>         for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
>>                 err = bpf_map_update_elem(fd, &i, &sfd[i], BPF_ANY);
>> -               if (err) {
>> +               if (i < 2 && !err) {
>> +                       printf("Allowed update sockmap '%i:%i' not in ESTABLISHED\n",
>> +                              i, sfd[i]);
>> +                       goto out_sockmap;
>> +               } else if (i > 1 && err) {
> 
> Just a nit. Maybe "i >= 2" since it will be more clear since it is
> opposite of "i < 2"?
> 

Seems reasonable changed in v3 to 'i >= 2'. Thanks.