netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netlink: add policy attribute range validation
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:17:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1537993066.28767.29.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180926200630.23399-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20180926_220654_781731_7A389A4D)

On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 22:06 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
> 
> Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
> the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
> and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
> attributes.
> 
> It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
> in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
> size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
> to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
> useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
> enum value.

That said, I did find a few places where we could benefit from a larger
type here - e.g. having a NLA_U16 that must be non-zero cannot be
represented in the policy as is, since you can't set max to 65535.

However, I don't think we want to push the policy struct to 12 bytes on
32-bit platforms? It's currently 16 bytes on 64-bit due to the pointer
(and alignment), but only 8 bytes on 32-bit.

Keeping the few places that needed this validation is unlikely to be a
larger win than the policy size increase due to the larger type.

johannes

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-09-27  2:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-26 20:06 [PATCH] netlink: add policy attribute range validation Johannes Berg
2018-09-26 20:07 ` [RFC] nl80211: use policy range validation where applicable Johannes Berg
2018-09-26 20:09   ` Johannes Berg
2018-09-26 20:17 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
     [not found]   ` <1537993066.28767.29.camel-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>
2018-09-26 20:35     ` [PATCH] netlink: add policy attribute range validation Johannes Berg
2018-09-27  7:16       ` Michal Kubecek
     [not found]         ` <20180927071621.GF30601-OEaqT8BN2ewCVLCxKZUutA@public.gmane.org>
2018-09-27  8:12           ` Johannes Berg
     [not found]             ` <1538035929.14416.21.camel-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>
2018-09-27  8:48               ` Michal Kubecek
2018-09-27  8:51                 ` Johannes Berg
2018-09-26 20:24 ` Johannes Berg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1537993066.28767.29.camel@sipsolutions.net \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).