netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] genetlink: start to validate reserved header bytes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YwzqNgj/bJoawrwh@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 12:32:54 -0400
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, jiri@...nulli.us, johannes@...solutions.net,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, osmocom-net-gprs@...ts.osmocom.org,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        target-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        mptcp@...ts.linux.dev, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] genetlink: start to validate reserved header
 bytes

Hi Jakub,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 05:18:30PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireguard/netlink.c b/drivers/net/wireguard/netlink.c
> index d0f3b6d7f408..0c0644e762e5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireguard/netlink.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireguard/netlink.c
> @@ -621,6 +621,7 @@ static const struct genl_ops genl_ops[] = {
>  static struct genl_family genl_family __ro_after_init = {
>  	.ops = genl_ops,
>  	.n_ops = ARRAY_SIZE(genl_ops),
> +	.resv_start_op = WG_CMD_SET_DEVICE + 1,
>  	.name = WG_GENL_NAME,
>  	.version = WG_GENL_VERSION,
>  	.maxattr = WGDEVICE_A_MAX,

FWIW, I wouldn't object to just leaving this at zero. I don't know of
any wireguard userspaces doing anything with the reserved header field.

Jason