netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: rtnetlink: support for fdb get

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: <024f717e-20d8-bd18-9ae9-586165f50ec8@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:58:13 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: rtnetlink: support for fdb get

On 12/14/18 12:54 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:42:21 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 12/14/18 12:37 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> Oh, so we'd use the STRICT checking in doit for the first time?  I
>>> better send that rename patch then..  
>>
>> IMHO, no. The flag is for older userspace that could be sending junk in
>> the request. All new code should do strict checking without the flag set
>> to ensure only proper requests are handled.
> 
> I'm going back and forth on that in my head.  IDK if new user space
> shouldn't be able to do a get request on an old kernel which doesn't
> understand some of the attributes.  Grey area.. perhaps it needs to be
> decided on case by case basis?  For my stats work I think returning too
> many stats if what is affectively a filter is not understood may be a
> good option.  Perhaps for fdb get it makes more sense to error out.
> hmm..
> 

I am referring to new code as in what Roopa is doing here -- adding a
whole new feature (support for RTM_GETNEIGH for PF_BRIDGE). There is no
support today, so no way it impacts existing userspace.

In cases where there is a handler for the operation, then, yes, the
strict flag is needed for any new kernel side filtering to ensure the
request is parsed properly.