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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> > Le Mon, 14 May 2012 16:42:35 +0200,
> > Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas
> > > > <javier.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Vincent Sanders
> > > > <vincent.sanders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
> > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
