netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: add support for matching IPv4 options

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: <20190601084025.rheeejbn3clpgsmu@salvia>
Date:   Sat, 1 Jun 2019 10:40:25 +0200
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@...il.com>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: add support for matching IPv4 options

On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 10:27:32AM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> > > »       iph = skb_header_pointer(skb, *offset, sizeof(_iph), &_iph);
> > > »       if (!iph || skb->protocol != htons(ETH_P_IP))
> > > »       »       return -EBADMSG;
> > 
> > I mean, you make this check upfront from the _eval() path, ie.
> > 
> > static void nft_exthdr_ipv4_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr,
> >                                  ...
> > {
> >         ...
> > 
> >         if (skb->protocol != htons(ETH_P_IP))
> >                 goto err;
> 
> Wouldn't it be preferable to just use nft_pf() != NFPROTO_IPV4?

Then IPv4 options extension won't work from bridge and netdev families
too, right?