Re: AUDIT: Safe usage of before48/after48 in the DCCP code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:00:15PM +0000, Gerrit Renker wrote:
> 
> 		1) General cases
> 		================

Thanks for doing the audit!

> CASE 1: calls of the form 
> 	 * if (before48(a,b)) or 
> 	 * if (after48(b,a))
>         are not ambiguous due to the definition of before48 (see above link for details).

Actually,

	if (before48(a, b))

is ambiguous if and only if

	if (!before48(a, b))

is ambiguous.  Whether it's safe depends on the clause after the if
statement, i.e.,

	if (before48(a, b))
		process_packet();

would be safe while

	if (before48(a, b))
		drop_packet();

is not.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [IETF DCCP]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux