Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:47:30 +0200 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net> Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] skbuff: return -EMSGSIZE in skb_to_sgvec to prevent overflow Hi Sabrina, On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net> wrote: > One small thing here: since you're touching this comment, could you > move it next to skb_to_sgvec, since that's the function it's supposed > to document? Done. I'll wait until next week to resubmit, to give some more time for comments, but my current living copy of this series is here: https://git.zx2c4.com/linux-dev/log/?h=jd/safe-skb-vec One thing I'm considering, after discussing with David Laight, is the potential of just using an explicit stack array for pushing and popping skbs, rather than using the call stack. While this increases complexity, which I'm opposed to, David makes the point that on some architectures, the stack frame is rather large, and 32 function calls of recursion might not be a good idea. Any opinons on this? Overkill and simplicity is preferred? Or in fact best practice? (Either way, I'll do a trial implementation of it to get an idea of how the end result feels.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.