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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230821104844.19dd4563@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:48:44 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, syzbot+5ba06978f34abb058571@...kaller.appspotmail.com, wg@...ndegger.com, mkl@...gutronix.de, idosch@...dia.com, lucien.xin@...il.com, xemul@...allels.com, socketcan@...tkopp.net, linux-can@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: validate veth and vxcan peer ifindexes On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 19:08:13 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote: > There is another report here [1] with a reproducer [2]. Even with this > patch, the reproducer can still trigger the warning on net-next. Don't > we also need to reject a negative ifindex in the ancillary header? At > least with the following diff the warning does not trigger anymore: Yeah, definitely, please go ahead and submit. Is "ancillary header" used more commonly as a term? in gnel we usually call this thing "user header" or "fixed header".
Powered by blists - more mailing lists