RE: Why don't we always check that attr->port_num is valid?

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

 



> > > We deliberately allow invalid attr->port_nums if IB_QP_PORT is not
> set.
> > > Why must we do that?  From a kernel hardening perspective it would
> > > be better to ban invalid values all together...
> >
> > It is part of the user ABI, so it has to stay that way...
> 
> Can we pre-process all invalid parameters at the kernel entry points
> to ensure that drivers receive clean input?
> 
> For example, overwrite attr->port_nums to be zero if IB_QP_PORT is not
> set.

I'm not sure this helps much.  The value must still be ignored by the driver, whether it's in range or not.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux