netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3] net/ipv4: ping_group_range: allow GID from 2147483648 to 4294967294

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: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 09:35:12 +0200
From: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
To: Akihiro Suda <suda.gitsendemail@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, segoon@...nwall.com, kuniyu@...zon.com
Cc: Akihiro Suda <akihiro.suda.cz@....ntt.co.jp>, suda.kyoto@...il.com,
 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net/ipv4: ping_group_range: allow GID from
 2147483648 to 4294967294 - manual merge

Hello,

On 01/06/2023 05:13, Akihiro Suda wrote:
> With this commit, all the GIDs ("0 4294967294") can be written to the
> "net.ipv4.ping_group_range" sysctl.
> 
> Note that 4294967295 (0xffffffff) is an invalid GID (see gid_valid() in
> include/linux/uidgid.h), and an attempt to register this number will cause
> -EINVAL.
> 
> Prior to this commit, only up to GID 2147483647 could be covered.
> Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst had "0 4294967295" as an example
> value, but this example was wrong and causing -EINVAL.

FYI, we got a small conflict when merging 'net' in 'net-next' in the
MPTCP tree due to this patch applied in 'net':

  e209fee4118f ("net/ipv4: ping_group_range: allow GID from 2147483648
to 4294967294")

and this one from 'net-next':

  ccce324dabfe ("tcp: make the first N SYN RTO backoffs linear")

----- Generic Message -----
The best is to avoid conflicts between 'net' and 'net-next' trees but if
they cannot be avoided when preparing patches, a note about how to fix
them is much appreciated.

The conflict has been resolved on our side[1] and the resolution we
suggest is attached to this email. Please report any issues linked to
this conflict resolution as it might be used by others. If you worked on
the mentioned patches, don't hesitate to ACK this conflict resolution.
---------------------------

Regarding this conflict, I simply took the modifications from both sides.

Cheers,
Matt

[1] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commit/f170c423f567
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
View attachment "f170c423f56781e5957cd5b3c4de781515ed2c2c.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (785 bytes)