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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 14:27:13 -0800
From: David Ahern <>
To: Petr Machata <>,
 Stephen Hemminger <>
Cc:, Patrisious Haddad <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 3/3] lib: utils: Add
 parse_one_of_deprecated(), parse_on_off_deprecated()

On 11/15/23 8:57 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger <> writes:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:31:59 +0100
>> Petr Machata <> wrote:
>>> The functions parse_on_off() and parse_one_of() currently use matches() for
>>> string comparison under the hood. This has some odd consequences. In
>>> particular, "o" can be used as a shorthand for "off", which is not obvious,
>>> because "o" is the prefix of both. By sheer luck, the end result actually
>>> makes some sense: "on" means on, anything else means off (or errors out).
>>> Similar issues are in principle also possible for parse_one_of() uses,
>>> though currently this does not come up.
>> This was probably a bug, I am open to breaking shorthand usage in this case.
> There were uses of matches() for on/off parsing even before adding
> parse_on_off(). The bug was converting _everyone_ to matches().
> I figured you'd be against just s/matches/strcmp, but if you think it's
> OK, I have no problem with that. Shorthanding on/off just makes no
> sense to me, not even by mistake.


> How about the parse_one_of() users? E.g. the disabled/check/strict for
> macsec validate, I could see someone mistyping it as "disable", so now
> it lives in some deployment script, or testing harness, or whatever.
> Maybe do the warning thing in this case? And retire it a couple releases
> down the line in favor of just accepting strcmp?

I think the macsec example needs to stay as is; it could be moved to a
parse_one_of_legacy() in ipmacsec to avoid copy-and-paste. The rest seem
safe to convert to your proposal.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists