[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230127084506.09f280619d64.I5dece85f06efa8ab0f474ca77df9e26d3553d4ab@changeid>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 08:45:06 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next] net: netlink: recommend policy range validation
From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
For large ranges (outside of s16) the documentation currently
recommends open-coding the validation, but it's better to use
the NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() or NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE_SIGNED()
policy validation instead; recommend that.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
---
include/net/netlink.h | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/net/netlink.h b/include/net/netlink.h
index 6e1e670e06bc..b12cd957abb4 100644
--- a/include/net/netlink.h
+++ b/include/net/netlink.h
@@ -276,7 +276,8 @@ enum nla_policy_validation {
* Note that in the interest of code simplicity and
* struct size both limits are s16, so you cannot
* enforce a range that doesn't fall within the range
- * of s16 - do that as usual in the code instead.
+ * of s16 - do that using the NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE()
+ * or NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE_SIGNED() macros instead.
* Use the NLA_POLICY_MIN(), NLA_POLICY_MAX() and
* NLA_POLICY_RANGE() macros.
* NLA_U8,
--
2.39.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists