netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] vsock/test: fix parameter types in SO_VM_SOCKETS

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m3yaa3o6gknyk27w6enfyp4xs76yn6dyawxaolafvf3r6fffa4@rjbfmbxmc26f>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:30:45 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Konstantin Shkolnyy <kshk@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] vsock/test: fix parameter types in
 SO_VM_SOCKETS_* calls

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:04:06AM -0500, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
>On 10/31/2024 09:16, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:49:54AM -0500, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
>>>Change parameters of SO_VM_SOCKETS_* to uint64_t so that they are always
>>
>>In include/uapi/linux/vm_sockets.h we talk about "unsigned long long",
>>but in the kernel code we use u64. IIUC "unsigned long long" should 
>>be u64 on every architecture, at least till we will have some 
>>128-bit cpu, right?
>
>I'm not sure what "unsigned long long" would be on a 128-bit machine.
>
>>What about using `unsigned long long` as documented in the vm_sockets.h?
>
>I use uint64_t because the kernel uses u64. I think, this way the code
>isn't vulnerable to potential variability of "unsigned long long".

IMHO the test should look more at UAPI than implementation.
Since we document to use "unsigned long long" I think we should use that 
in the test to check that our implementation behaves well with what we 
suggest the user to do.

>If we change to "unsigned long long" should we also change the kernel
>to "unsigned long long"?
>

For now, it should not change much to use u64 or unsigned long long, but 
I agree that it would be better to change it. I would do it in a 
separate series, though.

Thanks,
Stefano