netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 1/3] netlink: add support for formatted extack messages

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, 13 Oct 2022 18:16:47 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, edward.cree@....com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@....com,
        davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        habetsm.xilinx@...il.com, marcelo.leitner@...il.com,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 1/3] netlink: add support for formatted
 extack messages

On Thu, 2022-10-13 at 08:29 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 
>    I'd do:
> 
>    pr(extack formatting overflow $__FILE__:$__func__:$__LINE__ $needed_len)
>    
>    (I think splicing the "trunced extack:" with fmt will result
>     in the format string getting stored in .ro twice?)
> 

If you worry about the strings (and sizes) then you probably shouldn't
advocate always having __FILE__ and __func__ ;-)

FWIW, my argument earlier was that if we have the truncated string

 a) it lets you recover better in a live system
 b) the message ought to be enough to figure out where the issue is, and
    if the message isn't unique you probably have the problem twice too

But yeah, I'm with "take it or leave it", it all doesn't matter that
much.

johannes