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  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 10:25:23 -0700
From:   Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux X25 <linux-x25@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [net v3] drivers/net/wan/lapbether: Use needed_headroom instead
 of hard_header_len

Thanks!

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 2:50 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> It's [PATCH net v3], not [net v3]

Sorry. My mistake. I'll pay attention next time.

I'm currently thinking about changing the subject to reflect that we
added a "skb->len" check. Should I number the new patch as v1 or
continue to number it as v4?

> > +       if (skb->len < 1)
> > +               goto drop;
> > +
>
> Might be worth a comment along the lines of: /* upper layers pass a
> control byte. must validate pf_packet input */

OK. I'll add the comment before it to make its meaning clearer.

> > +       dev->hard_header_len = 0;
>
> Technically not needed. The struct is allocated with kvzalloc, z for
> __GFP_ZERO. Fine to leave if intended as self-describing comment, of
> course.

Thanks for pointing out! I think I can leave it as a self-describing comment.

Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists