netdev - Re: Netlink NLM_F_DUMP

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:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:03:07 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Ismael Luceno <iluceno@...e.de>
Cc:     "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 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:31:34 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
> >> 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?

Yup.

Ismael, do you want to send a patch for either version of the solution
or do you expect one of us to do it?