netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 05/20] netlink: Add new socket option to enable strict checking on dumps

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: <336199f4-1afc-f23e-0ccb-183dc0572290@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:43:55 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jbenc@...hat.com,
        stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 05/20] netlink: Add new socket option to enable
 strict checking on dumps

On 10/5/18 11:36 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/netlink.h b/include/linux/netlink.h
>> index 88c8a2d83eb3..36bdca2aa42d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/netlink.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/netlink.h
>> @@ -179,6 +179,8 @@ struct netlink_callback {
>>  	struct netlink_ext_ack	*extack;
>>  	u16			family;
>>  	u16			min_dump_alloc;
>> +	unsigned int		strict_check:1,
>> +				unused:31;
> 
> I like this idea a lot. :) but I'm not a fan of bitfields if not
> necessary. Is that really necessary here?
> 

no strong opinions on a bitfield vs a bool.