netdev - Re: [net-next v2 2/5] devlink: introduce flash update overwrite mask

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:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 09:53:10 -0700
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next v2 2/5] devlink: introduce flash update overwrite mask



On 8/3/2020 8:38 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 02:21:56AM CEST, jacob.e.keller@...el.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +	nla_mask = info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_FLASH_UPDATE_OVERWRITE_MASK];
>> +	if (nla_mask) {
>> +		if (!(supported_params & DEVLINK_SUPPORT_FLASH_UPDATE_OVERWRITE_MASK)) {
>> +			NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(info->extack, nla_mask,
>> +					    "overwrite is not supported");
>> +			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +		}
>> +		params.overwrite_mask = nla_get_u32(nla_mask);
> 
> It's a bitfield, should be NL_ATTR_TYPE_BITFIELD32.
> 

I disagree. BITFIELD32 has both a mask and a field. This doesn't have
the notion of a mask. The bits you allow are set, the bits you don't
allow are not set. Having both a mask and a field over complicates this.