kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: drop some VLAs in switch.c

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 23:01:05 +0100
From: Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, 
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: drop some VLAs in switch.c

2018-03-13 20:58 GMT+01:00 Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>:
> Hi Salvatore,

Hi Vivien,

> Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com> writes:
>
>> dsa_switch's num_ports is currently fixed to DSA_MAX_PORTS. So we avoid
>> 2 VLAs[1] by using DSA_MAX_PORTS instead of ds->num_ports.
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
>
> NAK.
>
> We are in the process to remove hardcoded limits such as DSA_MAX_PORTS
> and DSA_MAX_SWITCHES, so we have to stick with ds->num_ports.

I can rewrite the patch using kmalloc.
Although, if ds->num_ports will always be less than or equal to 12, it
should be better to
just use DSA_MAX_PORTS.

Thank you,

Salvatore

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.