From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] packet: always ensure that we pass hard_header_len bytes in skb_headlen() to the driver
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:06:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170127200639.GF25829@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF=yD-J6r+myVVAb5uNL8-Fua7Gr5q8U+veqPB=xm4gNOTp5Tg@mail.gmail.com>
On (01/27/17 14:29), Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>
> As your patch state, the contract is that any packet delivered to a
> driver has the entire L2 in its linear section. Drivers are not required
> to be robust against shorter packets, so there is no reason to test
> those.
>
> One option is to limit your fix to known fixed-header protocols.
> In these cases hard_header_len is the minimum, so anything
> smaller must be dropped.
yes, but how would you you know that this is a fixed-header protocol
or a var-hdrlen protocol? AIUI the hard_header_len itself will not
tell you this info: it will be 77 for ax25, 14 for ethernet,
but that does not tell me that ax25 is the "robust-er" driver
with a min requirement of 21 for the hdrlen.
That's why I was thinking of a IFF_L2_VARHDRLEN in the priv_flags
of the net_device.
> For protocols with variable header length it is fine to send packets
> shorter than hard_header_len, even with corrupted content (i.e.,
> even if they would fail that protocol's validate callback), as long as
> they exceed the minimum length. ax25 already has a min length
> check through its protocol-specific validate callback.
Another option that comes to mind.. the real thorn-in-the-flesh
here is the CAP_SYS_RAWIO check. Would it be a better idea to ask
the test-suites (since they seem to be the major consumer of
that path) to use a special PF_PACKET socket option instead, that
indicates "I'm testing robustness of the header, so let this one
slip past dev_validate_header at all times"?
It would mean the test suites would have to change slightly.
--Sowmini
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-27 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-24 16:11 [PATCH RFC net-next] packet: always ensure that we pass hard_header_len bytes in skb_headlen() to the driver Sowmini Varadhan
2017-01-25 17:45 ` David Miller
2017-01-26 20:21 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-01-26 21:37 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2017-01-27 0:08 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-01-27 2:08 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2017-01-27 14:37 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-01-27 15:11 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2017-01-27 15:28 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-01-27 17:03 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2017-01-27 19:29 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-01-27 20:06 ` Sowmini Varadhan [this message]
2017-01-27 20:51 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-01-27 21:58 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2017-01-28 0:19 ` Willem de Bruijn
2017-01-30 16:26 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2017-01-30 16:41 ` David Miller
2017-02-07 20:51 ` Willem de Bruijn
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=20170127200639.GF25829@oracle.com \
--to=sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
/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).