netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 11/20] rtnetlink: Update inet6_dump

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: <20181007102541.73es27d6b3lqnbfe@brauner.io>
Date:   Sun, 7 Oct 2018 12:25:42 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, jbenc@...hat.com, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 11/20] rtnetlink: Update inet6_dump_ifinfo for
 strict data checking

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 01:25:22PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/5/18 11:48 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:33:46PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> >> From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> >>
> >> Update inet6_dump_ifinfo for strict data checking. If the flag is
> >> set, the dump request is expected to have an ifinfomsg struct as
> >> the header. All elements of the struct are expected to be 0 and no
> >> attributes can be appended.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>

Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>

> > This is on top of current net-next? Are your patches ensuring that
> > ipv6 addr requests don't generate log messages anymore when a wrong
> > header is passed but the strict socket option is not passed? The context
> > here doesn't seem to indicate that. :)
> > 
> 
> this is an AF_INET6 GETLINK handler. Why? no idea, but I think you are
> confusing this patch with the GETADDR patch which generated the
> "netlink: 16 bytes leftover after parsing attributes in process `ip'."
> message before this set.

Yes, I realized this immediately afterwards.