netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: validate veth and vxcan peer ifindexes

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]

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".