netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/20] rtnetlink: Add support for rigid checking of data in dump request

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:   Fri, 05 Oct 2018 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     dsahern@...il.com
Cc:     dsahern@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, christian@...uner.io,
        jbenc@...hat.com, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/20] rtnetlink: Add support for rigid
 checking of data in dump request

From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:18:11 -0600

> One thing I missed in the rfc and v1 versions is strict attribute
> parsing -- ie., there should be nothing remaining after nla_parse is
> done. I have a new patch that adds an nlmsg_parse_strict and
> nla_parse_strict that returns -EINVAL (with extack filled in) if that
> happens. The new patch pushes the set over 20.
> 
> I can peel off the first 3 patches from this set which add extack to the
> dumps and down to nlmsg_parse and send those separately if preferred.

Don't worry about it, just send the whole thing.

My rule with patch series sizes is "be reasonable", rather than a
strict number requirement.

Thanks.