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: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 12:45:55 +0000 From: <Daniel.Machon@...rochip.com> To: <petrm@...dia.com> CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>, <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <Lars.Povlsen@...rochip.com>, <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <joe@...ches.com>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>, <Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com>, <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>, <vladimir.oltean@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] net: dcb: add new apptrust attribute > > + if (ieee[DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST_TABLE]) { > > + u8 selectors[IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_MAX + 1] = {0}; > > + struct nlattr *attr; > > + int nselectors = 0; > > + u8 selector; > > + int rem, i; > > + > > + if (!ops->dcbnl_setapptrust) { > > + err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + goto err; > > + } > > + > > + nla_for_each_nested(attr, ieee[DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST_TABLE], > > + rem) { > > + if (nla_type(attr) != DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST || > > + nla_len(attr) != 1 || > > + nselectors >= sizeof(selectors)) { > > + err = -EINVAL; > > + goto err; > > + } > > + > > + selector = nla_get_u8(attr); > > + switch (selector) { > > + case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_ETHERTYPE: > > + case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_STREAM: > > + case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_DGRAM: > > + case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_ANY: > > + case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_DSCP: > > + case DCB_APP_SEL_PCP: > > This assumes that the range of DCB attributes will never overlap with > the range of IEEE attributes. Wasn't the original reason for introducing > the DCB nest to not have to make this assumption? > > I.e. now that we split DCB and IEEE attributes in the APP_TABLE > attribute, shouldn't it be done here as well? Hmm, doesn't hurt to do strict checking here as well. We can even get rid of the DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST attr and just pass DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP and DCB_ATTR_IEEE_APP? Then use the same functions to do the checking. / Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists