netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] ethtool: specify which header flags are supported per command

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: <1dc47668cc015c5a1bff10072e64e55a3436cbb7.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Mon, 05 Oct 2020 20:58:57 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        andrew@...n.ch, mkubecek@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] ethtool: specify which header flags are
 supported per command

On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 08:57 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 
> @@ -47,19 +61,16 @@ int ethnl_parse_header_dev_get(struct ethnl_req_info *req_info,
>  		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "request header missing");
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
> +	/* Use most permissive header policy here, ops should specify their
> +	 * actual header policy via NLA_POLICY_NESTED(), and the real
> +	 * validation will happen in genetlink code.
> +	 */
>  	ret = nla_parse_nested(tb, ETHTOOL_A_HEADER_MAX, header,
> -			       ethnl_header_policy, extack);
> +			       ethnl_header_policy_stats, extack);

Would it make sense to just remove the validation here? It's already
done, so it just costs extra cycles and can't really fail, and if there
are more diverse policies in the future this might also very quickly get
out of hand?

johannes