| Message ID | 20120514170410.6c2f1c5b@rainbow.cbg.collabora.co.uk |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 05:04:10PM +0100, Alban Crequy wrote: > Le Mon, 14 May 2012 16:39:49 +0100, > Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@collabora.co.uk> a écrit : > > > Le Mon, 14 May 2012 16:42:35 +0200, > > Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> a écrit : > > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 02:56:34PM +0100, Alban Crequy wrote: > > > > With the NFPROTO_* constants introduced by commit 7e9c6e > > > > ("netfilter: Introduce NFPROTO_* constants"), it is too easy to > > > > confuse PF_* and NFPROTO_* constants in new protocols. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@collabora.co.uk> > > > > Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > > > > <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> Reviewed-by: Vincent Sanders > > > > <vincent.sanders@collabora.co.uk> --- > > > > net/netfilter/core.c | 5 +++++ > > > > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/core.c b/net/netfilter/core.c > > > > index e1b7e05..4f16552 100644 > > > > --- a/net/netfilter/core.c > > > > +++ b/net/netfilter/core.c > > > > @@ -67,6 +67,11 @@ int nf_register_hook(struct nf_hook_ops *reg) > > > > struct nf_hook_ops *elem; > > > > int err; > > > > > > > > + if (reg->pf >= NFPROTO_NUMPROTO || reg->hooknum >= > > > > NF_MAX_HOOKS) { > > > > + BUG(); > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > nf_register_hook returns a negative value on error. -EINVAL can be > > > fine. > > > > Is it the patch you mean? Do you want me to do a series repost? > > Please disregard the previous patch, this is the correct one. > > > From: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@collabora.co.uk> > > netfilter: sanity checks on NFPROTO_NUMPROTO > > With the NFPROTO_* constants introduced by commit 7e9c6e ("netfilter: Introduce > NFPROTO_* constants"), it is too easy to confuse PF_* and NFPROTO_* constants > in new protocols. > > Signed-off-by: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@collabora.co.uk> > --- > net/netfilter/core.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/core.c b/net/netfilter/core.c > index e1b7e05..7422989 100644 > --- a/net/netfilter/core.c > +++ b/net/netfilter/core.c > @@ -67,6 +67,14 @@ int nf_register_hook(struct nf_hook_ops *reg) > struct nf_hook_ops *elem; > int err; > > + if (reg->pf >= NFPROTO_NUMPROTO || reg->hooknum >= NF_MAX_HOOKS) { > + WARN(reg->pf >= NFPROTO_NUMPROTO, > + "netfilter: Invalid nfproto %d\n", reg->pf); > + WARN(reg->hooknum >= NF_MAX_HOOKS, > + "netfilter: Invalid hooknum %d\n", reg->hooknum); Then, better add two checkings. One to spot the first warning, and another to spot the second. I havent seen such a code in any netfilter code and I like that things remain consistent. > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&nf_hook_mutex); > if (err < 0) > return err; > -- > 1.7.2.5 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/netfilter/core.c b/net/netfilter/core.c index e1b7e05..7422989 100644 --- a/net/netfilter/core.c +++ b/net/netfilter/core.c @@ -67,6 +67,14 @@ int nf_register_hook(struct nf_hook_ops *reg) struct nf_hook_ops *elem; int err; + if (reg->pf >= NFPROTO_NUMPROTO || reg->hooknum >= NF_MAX_HOOKS) { + WARN(reg->pf >= NFPROTO_NUMPROTO, + "netfilter: Invalid nfproto %d\n", reg->pf); + WARN(reg->hooknum >= NF_MAX_HOOKS, + "netfilter: Invalid hooknum %d\n", reg->hooknum); + return -EINVAL; + } + err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&nf_hook_mutex); if (err < 0) return err;