RE: [RFC V2 PATCH] rtnetlink: Fix problem with buffer allocation

["Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Graf [mailto:tgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Graf
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 6:08 AM
> To: Ben Hutchings
> Cc: Rose, Gregory V; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RFC V2 PATCH] rtnetlink: Fix problem with buffer allocation
> 
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:13:13PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > +		struct rtattr *ext_req;
> > > +		u32 *ext_req_data;
> > > +		req = (struct rtnl_req_extended *)cb->nlh;
> > > +		ext_req = (struct rtattr *)&req->ext;
> > > +		if (ext_req->rta_type == IFLA_EXT_MASK) {
> > > +			ext_req_data = RTA_DATA(ext_req);
> > > +			ext_filter_mask = *ext_req_data;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> >
> > We cannot trust a flag to tell us what the length of the message is.  We
> > have to check the value of nlmsg_len (which netlink has already
> > validated as being within the skb length and >= our declared request
> > header length).  I think that makes the flag redundant.
> >
> > In fact, I think we should really use nlmsg_parse() here.  That might be
> > overkill when there's only a single valid attribute; I don't know.
> 
> I think it's worth the effort. You get all the validation for free. And
> please use the netlink interface in <net/netlink.h>, the rtattr based
> interface has been deprecated a while ago.

Yes, I'm changing it to use nlmsg_parse.  Didn't know about the deprecation of rtattr though, thanks for the tip.

- Greg

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html