netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] netlink: introduce NLA_POLICY_MAX

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:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:35:00 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] netlink: introduce NLA_POLICY_MAX_BE

Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-10-27 at 13:31 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon,  5 Sep 2022 12:09:36 +0200 Florian Westphal wrote:
> > >  		struct {
> > >  			s16 min, max;
> > > +			u8 network_byte_order:1;
> > >  		};
> > 
> > This makes the union 64bit even on 32bit systems.
> > Do we care? Should we accept that and start using
> > full 64bits in other validation members?
> > 
> > We can quite easily steal a bit elsewhere, which
> > I reckon may be the right thing to do, but I thought
> > I'd ask.

I'm fine with scraping the marker elsewhere.

> In fact we could easily just have three extra types NLA_BE16, NLA_BE32
> and NLA_BE64 types without even stealing a bit?

Sure, I can make a patch if there is consensus that new types are the
way to go.