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: <20201005122544.70aad7f5@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:25:44 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, 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, 05 Oct 2020 20:58:57 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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?

I was slightly worried I missed a command and need last line of defence,
but you're right, I'll just pass a NULL for the policy in v2 :)