netdev - Re: [PATCH] vsock/test: fix failures due to wrong SO

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: <ca6702e0-bdd9-4ab7-8fbc-e8b0404c9ed5@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:00:47 -0500
From: Konstantin Shkolnyy <kshk@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsock/test: fix failures due to wrong SO_RCVLOWAT
 parameter

On 10/24/2024 03:43, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> Other setsockopt() in the tests where we use unsigned long are
> SO_VM_SOCKETS_* but they are expected to be unsigned, so we should be
> fine.

It's actually not "signed vs unsigned", but a "size + endianess" problem.

Also, looking at SO_VM_SOCKETS_* code in the test, it uses unsigned long 
and size_t which (I believe) will both shrink to 4 bytes on 32-bit 
machines, while the corresponding kernel code in af_vsock.c uses u64. It 
looks to me that this kernel code will be unhappy to receive just 4 
bytes when it expects 8.