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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:31:34 -0600 From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: Ismael Luceno <iluceno@...e.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Netlink NLM_F_DUMP_INTR flag lost On 6/23/22 10:36 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:17:17 -0600 David Ahern wrote: >>> Yup, the question for me is what's the risk / benefit of sending >>> the empty message vs putting the _DUMP_INTR on the next family. >>> I'm leaning towards putting it on the next family and treating >>> the entire dump as interrupted, do you reckon that's suboptimal? >> >> I think it is going to be misleading; the INTR flag needs to be set on >> the dump that is affected. > > Right, it's a bit of a philosophical discussion but dump is delineated > but NLMSG_DONE. PF_UNSPEC dump is a single dump, not a group of multiple > independent per-family dumps. If we think of a nlmsg as a representation > of an object having an empty one is awkward. What if someone does a dump > to just count objects? Too speculative? > > I guess one can argue either way, no empty messages is a weaker promise > and hopefully lower risk, hence my preference. Do you feel strongly for > the message? Do we flip a coin? :) I do not; history suggests it is a toss up. > >> All of the dumps should be checking the consistency at the end of the >> dump - regardless of any remaining entries on a particular round (e.g., >> I mentioned this what the nexthop dump does). Worst case then is DONE >> and INTR are set on the same message with no data, but it tells >> explicitly the set of data affected. > > Okay, perhaps we should put a WARN_ON_ONCE(seq && seq != prev_seq) > in rtnl_dump_all() then, to catch those who get it wrong. with '!(nlh->msg_flags & INTR)' to catch seq numbers not matching and the message was not flagged?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists