netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/8] net: bridge: vlan: add rtm definitions and dump support

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:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 18:45:46 +0200
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/8] net: bridge: vlan: add rtm definitions and
 dump support

On 14/01/2020 18:36, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 14/01/2020 17:34, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 1/14/20 6:55 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:52:28 +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>>> +static int br_vlan_rtm_dump(struct sk_buff *skb, struct netlink_callback *cb)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int idx = 0, err = 0, s_idx = cb->args[0];
>>>> +	struct net *net = sock_net(skb->sk);
>>>> +	struct br_vlan_msg *bvm;
>>>> +	struct net_device *dev;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (cb->nlh->nlmsg_len < nlmsg_msg_size(sizeof(*bvm))) {
>>>
>>> I wonder if it'd be useful to make this a strict != check? At least
>>> when strict validation is on? Perhaps we'll one day want to extend 
>>> the request?
>>>
>>
>> +1. All new code should be using the strict checks.
>>
> 
> IIRC, I did it to be able to add filter attributes later, but it should just use nlmsg_parse()
> instead and all will be taken care of.
> I'll respin v2 with that change.
> 
> Thanks,
>  Nik
> 

Actually nlmsg_parse() uses the same "<" check for the size before parsing. :)
If I change to it and with no attributes to parse would be essentially equal to the
current situation, but if I make it strict "!=" then we won't be able to add
filter attributes later as we won't be backwards compatible. I'll continue looking
into it, but IMO we should leave it as it is in order to be able to add the filtering later.

Thoughts ?