[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:07:11 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI
<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Linux Crypto
Mailing List" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"coreteam@...filter.org" <coreteam@...filter.org>,
"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hams@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hams@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
"bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-can@...r.kernel.org" <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
"dccp@...r.kernel.org" <dccp@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net>, "linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, "mptcp@...ts.01.org" <mptcp@...ts.01.org>,
"lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org" <lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"rds-devel@....oracle.com" <rds-devel@....oracle.com>,
"linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org>,
"tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>, "linux-x25@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-x25@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 12/26] netfilter: switch nf_setsockopt to sockptr_t
From: Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: 27 July 2020 17:24
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:16:32PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Maybe sockptr_advance should have some safety checks and sometimes
> > return -EFAULT? Or you should always use the implementation where
> > being a kernel address is an explicit bit of sockptr_t, rather than
> > being implicit?
>
> I already have a patch to use access_ok to check the whole range in
> init_user_sockptr.
That doesn't make (much) difference to the code paths that ignore
the user-supplied length.
OTOH doing the user/kernel check on the base address (not an
incremented one) means that the correct copy function is always
selected.
Perhaps the functions should all be passed a 'const sockptr_t'.
The typedef could be made 'const' - requiring non-const items
explicitly use the union/struct itself.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
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.
