License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license
Many source files in the tree are missing licensing information, which
makes it harder for compliance tools to determine the correct license.
By default all files without license information are under the default
license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2.
Update the files which contain no license information with the 'GPL-2.0'
SPDX license identifier. The SPDX identifier is a legally binding
shorthand, which can be used instead of the full boiler plate text.
This patch is based on work done by Thomas Gleixner and Kate Stewart and
Philippe Ombredanne.
How this work was done:
Patches were generated and checked against linux-4.14-rc6 for a subset of
the use cases:
- file had no licensing information it it.
- file was a */uapi/* one with no licensing information in it,
- file was a */uapi/* one with existing licensing information,
Further patches will be generated in subsequent months to fix up cases
where non-standard license headers were used, and references to license
had to be inferred by heuristics based on keywords.
The analysis to determine which SPDX License Identifier to be applied to
a file was done in a spreadsheet of side by side results from of the
output of two independent scanners (ScanCode & Windriver) producing SPDX
tag:value files created by Philippe Ombredanne. Philippe prepared the
base worksheet, and did an initial spot review of a few 1000 files.
The 4.13 kernel was the starting point of the analysis with 60,537 files
assessed. Kate Stewart did a file by file comparison of the scanner
results in the spreadsheet to determine which SPDX license identifier(s)
to be applied to the file. She confirmed any determination that was not
immediately clear with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Criteria used to select files for SPDX license identifier tagging was:
- Files considered eligible had to be source code files.
- Make and config files were included as candidates if they contained >5
lines of source
- File already had some variant of a license header in it (even if <5
lines).
All documentation files were explicitly excluded.
The following heuristics were used to determine which SPDX license
identifiers to apply.
- when both scanners couldn't find any license traces, file was
considered to have no license information in it, and the top level
COPYING file license applied.
For non */uapi/* files that summary was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 11139
and resulted in the first patch in this series.
If that file was a */uapi/* path one, it was "GPL-2.0 WITH
Linux-syscall-note" otherwise it was "GPL-2.0". Results of that was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 930
and resulted in the second patch in this series.
- if a file had some form of licensing information in it, and was one
of the */uapi/* ones, it was denoted with the Linux-syscall-note if
any GPL family license was found in the file or had no licensing in
it (per prior point). Results summary:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 270
GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 169
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-2-Clause) 21
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 17
LGPL-2.1+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 15
GPL-1.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 14
((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 5
LGPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 4
LGPL-2.1 WITH Linux-syscall-note 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT) 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT) 1
and that resulted in the third patch in this series.
- when the two scanners agreed on the detected license(s), that became
the concluded license(s).
- when there was disagreement between the two scanners (one detected a
license but the other didn't, or they both detected different
licenses) a manual inspection of the file occurred.
- In most cases a manual inspection of the information in the file
resulted in a clear resolution of the license that should apply (and
which scanner probably needed to revisit its heuristics).
- When it was not immediately clear, the license identifier was
confirmed with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
- If there was any question as to the appropriate license identifier,
the file was flagged for further research and to be revisited later
in time.
In total, over 70 hours of logged manual review was done on the
spreadsheet to determine the SPDX license identifiers to apply to the
source files by Kate, Philippe, Thomas and, in some cases, confirmation
by lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Kate also obtained a third independent scan of the 4.13 code base from
FOSSology, and compared selected files where the other two scanners
disagreed against that SPDX file, to see if there was new insights. The
Windriver scanner is based on an older version of FOSSology in part, so
they are related.
Thomas did random spot checks in about 500 files from the spreadsheets
for the uapi headers and agreed with SPDX license identifier in the
files he inspected. For the non-uapi files Thomas did random spot checks
in about 15000 files.
In initial set of patches against 4.14-rc6, 3 files were found to have
copy/paste license identifier errors, and have been fixed to reflect the
correct identifier.
Additionally Philippe spent 10 hours this week doing a detailed manual
inspection and review of the 12,461 patched files from the initial patch
version early this week with:
- a full scancode scan run, collecting the matched texts, detected
license ids and scores
- reviewing anything where there was a license detected (about 500+
files) to ensure that the applied SPDX license was correct
- reviewing anything where there was no detection but the patch license
was not GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note to ensure that the applied
SPDX license was correct
This produced a worksheet with 20 files needing minor correction. This
worksheet was then exported into 3 different .csv files for the
different types of files to be modified.
These .csv files were then reviewed by Greg. Thomas wrote a script to
parse the csv files and add the proper SPDX tag to the file, in the
format that the file expected. This script was further refined by Greg
based on the output to detect more types of files automatically and to
distinguish between header and source .c files (which need different
comment types.) Finally Greg ran the script using the .csv files to
generate the patches.
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2017-11-01 15:07:57 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-03 23:15:30 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2015-03-29 16:59:25 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-06-21 13:45:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-15 00:31:06 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-15 00:31:41 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-10 21:09:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-01-22 22:10:59 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-13 16:46:43 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:20 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-29 16:59:25 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-15 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 15:54:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-26 22:19:42 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 15:53:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-26 11:15:34 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-26 20:11:47 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-03-23 11:37:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-30 13:24:49 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-17 11:57:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2022-10-31 13:34:07 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 15:07:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-27 11:28:36 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-27 11:28:36 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-26 20:11:47 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-26 20:11:47 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-03-23 11:37:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-26 11:15:34 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-26 11:15:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-26 11:15:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-03 00:10:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-10-31 13:34:07 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-03 00:10:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-17 11:57:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-03 00:10:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-26 20:11:47 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-17 11:57:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-17 11:57:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-26 11:15:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-10-31 13:34:07 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-01-27 08:45:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-17 11:57:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-27 11:28:36 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-09-27 11:28:36 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-02-18 08:14:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-03-23 11:37:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-26 20:11:47 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2022-10-27 14:21:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add strict parsing for future attributes
Unfortunately, we cannot add strict parsing for all attributes, as
that would break existing userspace. We currently warn about it, but
that's about all we can do.
For new attributes, however, the story is better: nobody is using
them, so we can reject bad sizes.
Also, for new attributes, we need not accept them when the policy
doesn't declare their usage.
David Ahern and I went back and forth on how to best encode this, and
the best way we found was to have a "boundary type", from which point
on new attributes have all possible validation applied, and NLA_UNSPEC
is rejected.
As we didn't want to add another argument to all functions that get a
netlink policy, the workaround is to encode that boundary in the first
entry of the policy array (which is for type 0 and thus probably not
really valid anyway). I put it into the validation union for the rare
possibility that somebody is actually using attribute 0, which would
continue to work fine unless they tried to use the extended validation,
which isn't likely. We also didn't find any in-tree users with type 0.
The reason for setting the "start strict here" attribute is that we
never really need to start strict from 0, which is invalid anyway (or
in legacy families where that isn't true, it cannot be set to strict),
so we can thus reserve the value 0 for "don't do this check" and don't
have to add the tag to all policies right now.
Thus, policies can now opt in to this validation, which we should do
for all existing policies, at least when adding new attributes.
Note that entirely *new* policies won't need to set it, as the use
of that should be using nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc. which anyway
do fully strict validation now, regardless of this.
So in effect, this patch only covers the "existing command with new
attribute" case.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:30 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add strict parsing for future attributes
Unfortunately, we cannot add strict parsing for all attributes, as
that would break existing userspace. We currently warn about it, but
that's about all we can do.
For new attributes, however, the story is better: nobody is using
them, so we can reject bad sizes.
Also, for new attributes, we need not accept them when the policy
doesn't declare their usage.
David Ahern and I went back and forth on how to best encode this, and
the best way we found was to have a "boundary type", from which point
on new attributes have all possible validation applied, and NLA_UNSPEC
is rejected.
As we didn't want to add another argument to all functions that get a
netlink policy, the workaround is to encode that boundary in the first
entry of the policy array (which is for type 0 and thus probably not
really valid anyway). I put it into the validation union for the rare
possibility that somebody is actually using attribute 0, which would
continue to work fine unless they tried to use the extended validation,
which isn't likely. We also didn't find any in-tree users with type 0.
The reason for setting the "start strict here" attribute is that we
never really need to start strict from 0, which is invalid anyway (or
in legacy families where that isn't true, it cannot be set to strict),
so we can thus reserve the value 0 for "don't do this check" and don't
have to add the tag to all policies right now.
Thus, policies can now opt in to this validation, which we should do
for all existing policies, at least when adding new attributes.
Note that entirely *new* policies won't need to set it, as the use
of that should be using nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc. which anyway
do fully strict validation now, regardless of this.
So in effect, this patch only covers the "existing command with new
attribute" case.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:30 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-10-27 14:21:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-25 09:22:04 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-10-27 14:21:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-17 11:57:29 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-01-25 10:08:28 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-01-25 10:08:28 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-01-25 10:08:28 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:05 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-26 11:15:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-07-18 09:52:29 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 15:07:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 15:07:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2018-10-12 12:53:00 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 15:07:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 15:07:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 15:07:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 15:07:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-27 11:28:36 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add attribute range validation to policy
Without further bloating the policy structs, we can overload
the `validation_data' pointer with a struct of s16 min, max
and use those to validate ranges in NLA_{U,S}{8,16,32,64}
attributes.
It may sound strange to validate NLA_U32 with a s16 max, but
in many cases NLA_U32 is used for enums etc. since there's no
size benefit in using a smaller attribute width anyway, due
to netlink attribute alignment; in cases like that it's still
useful, particularly when the attribute really transports an
enum value.
Doing so lets us remove quite a bit of validation code, if we
can be sure that these attributes aren't used by userspace in
places where they're ignored today.
To achieve all this, split the 'type' field and introduce a
new 'validation_type' field which indicates what further
validation (beyond the validation prescribed by the type of
the attribute) is done. This currently allows for no further
validation (the default), as well as min, max and range checks.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2018-09-27 11:28:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 15:07:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-27 11:28:36 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make NLA_BINARY validation more flexible
Add range validation for NLA_BINARY, allowing validation of any
combination of combination minimum or maximum lengths, using the
existing NLA_POLICY_RANGE()/NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE() macros, just
like for integers where the value is checked.
Also make NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN(), NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN()
and NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() special cases of this, removing the old
types NLA_EXACT_LEN and NLA_MIN_LEN.
This allows us to save some code where both minimum and maximum
lengths are requires, currently the policy only allows maximum
(NLA_BINARY), minimum (NLA_MIN_LEN) or exact (NLA_EXACT_LEN), so
a range of lengths cannot be accepted and must be checked by the
code that consumes the attributes later.
Also, this allows advertising the correct ranges in the policy
export to userspace. Here, NLA_MIN_LEN and NLA_EXACT_LEN already
were special cases of NLA_BINARY with min and min/max length
respectively.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-08-18 10:17:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-17 18:14:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-06-18 18:12:43 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-06-18 18:12:43 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2019-06-18 18:12:44 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-17 18:14:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-01-10 03:26:13 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-06-18 18:12:44 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-17 18:14:52 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-05-02 16:15:10 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-05-02 16:15:10 +02:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-05-02 16:15:10 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2013-09-21 10:22:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-12 14:34:04 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-21 10:22:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-21 10:22:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-15 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2017-07-27 16:56:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2013-09-21 10:22:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-21 18:58:24 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-21 10:22:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-21 18:58:24 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-21 10:22:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-21 18:58:24 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-21 10:22:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-21 18:58:24 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-21 10:22:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-05-10 10:16:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-12-25 17:21:17 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-16 09:52:32 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 14:07:29 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-12 14:34:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-10-07 20:16:23 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-10-07 20:16:23 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 14:07:29 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-08-24 09:36:21 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 14:07:29 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-12 13:07:07 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 14:07:29 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-08-24 09:36:21 +08:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-10-07 20:16:25 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-10-07 20:16:25 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-08-24 09:36:21 +08:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-10-07 20:16:25 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-03 16:35:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 14:07:29 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-12 14:34:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-15 00:31:41 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-08-25 16:07:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-15 00:31:41 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2021-07-27 11:41:41 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-15 00:31:41 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-10-28 04:42:21 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-10-16 15:47:51 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-10-27 14:25:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-11-10 14:10:15 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-11-10 14:10:15 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-11-10 14:10:15 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-11-10 14:10:15 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-16 22:09:00 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-04-19 20:29:13 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-19 20:29:13 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-03 16:36:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-03 16:36:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-06 01:04:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-06 01:04:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-03 16:36:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-03 16:36:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-03 16:36:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-15 00:31:06 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-07 20:12:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: advertise incomplete dumps
Consider the following situation:
* a dump that would show 8 entries, four in the first
round, and four in the second
* between the first and second rounds, 6 entries are
removed
* now the second round will not show any entry, and
even if there is a sequence/generation counter the
application will not know
To solve this problem, add a new flag NLM_F_DUMP_INTR
to the netlink header that indicates the dump wasn't
consistent, this flag can also be set on the MSG_DONE
message that terminates the dump, and as such above
situation can be detected.
To achieve this, add a sequence counter to the netlink
callback struct. Of course, netlink code still needs
to use this new functionality. The correct way to do
that is to always set cb->seq when a dumpit callback
is invoked and call nl_dump_check_consistent() for
each new message. The core code will also call this
function for the final MSG_DONE message.
To make it usable with generic netlink, a new function
genlmsg_nlhdr() is needed to obtain the netlink header
from the genetlink user header.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
2011-06-20 13:40:46 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-09-12 14:44:36 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-13 22:30:15 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-10 21:09:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-19 03:54:35 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-16 09:52:32 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 14:07:29 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-05-02 16:15:10 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 14:07:29 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-12 14:34:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-06-25 13:49:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-10 21:09:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-03-29 23:18:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-03-29 23:18:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 19:11:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 19:11:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 20:14:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 20:14:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2012-03-29 23:18:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-03-29 23:18:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 19:11:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 19:11:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 20:14:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 20:14:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:22 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:22 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-03-29 23:18:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:18 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-03-29 23:18:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:18 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-03-29 23:18:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:18 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-03-29 23:18:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-03-29 23:18:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 19:11:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 19:11:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 19:11:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 19:11:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 19:11:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 20:14:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:17 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 20:14:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:17 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 20:14:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:17 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 20:14:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-04-01 20:14:27 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:20 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:20 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:20 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-07-25 02:18:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2014-07-25 02:18:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-22 17:31:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-29 16:59:25 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 23:29:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-29 16:59:25 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-03-28 16:37:42 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-28 11:59:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-26 22:14:41 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-28 11:59:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-09-26 22:14:41 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-09-28 09:00:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-28 11:59:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-12-17 22:29:26 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-28 11:59:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-12-17 22:29:26 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-11-24 17:14:51 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-28 11:59:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-11-24 17:14:51 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-28 11:59:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-28 11:59:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-05-27 17:50:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-03-16 13:30:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-09-28 09:00:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-07-27 06:28:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-03-16 13:30:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2009-05-27 17:50:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: add variable-length / auto integers
We currently push everyone to use padding to align 64b values
in netlink. Un-padded nla_put_u64() doesn't even exist any more.
The story behind this possibly start with this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20121204.130914.1457976839967676240.davem@davemloft.net/
where DaveM was concerned about the alignment of a structure
containing 64b stats. If user space tries to access such struct
directly:
struct some_stats *stats = nla_data(attr);
printf("A: %llu", stats->a);
lack of alignment may become problematic for some architectures.
These days we most often put every single member in a separate
attribute, meaning that the code above would use a helper like
nla_get_u64(), which can deal with alignment internally.
Even for arches which don't have good unaligned access - access
aligned to 4B should be pretty efficient.
Kernel and well known libraries deal with unaligned input already.
Padded 64b is quite space-inefficient (64b + pad means at worst 16B
per attr vs 32b which takes 8B). It is also more typing:
if (nla_put_u64_pad(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING,
value, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_PAD))
Create a new attribute type which will use 32 bits at netlink
level if value is small enough (probably most of the time?),
and (4B-aligned) 64 bits otherwise. Kernel API is just:
if (nla_put_uint(rsp, NETDEV_A_SOMETHING_SOMETHING, value))
Calling this new type "just" sint / uint with no specific size
will hopefully also make people more comfortable with using it.
Currently telling people "don't use u8, you may need the bits,
and netlink will round up to 4B, anyway" is the #1 comment
we give to newcomers.
In terms of netlink layout it looks like this:
0 4 8 12 16
32b: [nlattr][ u32 ]
64b: [ pad ][nlattr][ u64 ]
uint(32) [nlattr][ u32 ]
uint(64) [nlattr][ u64 ]
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2023-10-18 14:39:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-28 11:59:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-28 11:59:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-29 16:59:26 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-07-30 13:24:49 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-10-26 10:53:16 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 11:13:06 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 11:13:06 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 11:13:06 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-04-19 20:29:13 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-26 11:13:06 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-10 21:09:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-04-19 20:29:13 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-03 16:36:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-03 16:36:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-03 16:36:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 15:54:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-11 10:58:19 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 15:54:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-12 14:34:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 15:54:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-05-28 10:56:03 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-11 10:58:19 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-05-28 10:56:03 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 15:54:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: make validation more configurable for future strictness
We currently have two levels of strict validation:
1) liberal (default)
- undefined (type >= max) & NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
- garbage at end of message accepted
2) strict (opt-in)
- NLA_UNSPEC attributes accepted
- attribute length >= expected accepted
Split out parsing strictness into four different options:
* TRAILING - check that there's no trailing data after parsing
attributes (in message or nested)
* MAXTYPE - reject attrs > max known type
* UNSPEC - reject attributes with NLA_UNSPEC policy entries
* STRICT_ATTRS - strictly validate attribute size
The default for future things should be *everything*.
The current *_strict() is a combination of TRAILING and MAXTYPE,
and is renamed to _deprecated_strict().
The current regular parsing has none of this, and is renamed to
*_parse_deprecated().
Additionally it allows us to selectively set one of the new flags
even on old policies. Notably, the UNSPEC flag could be useful in
this case, since it can be arranged (by filling in the policy) to
not be an incompatible userspace ABI change, but would then going
forward prevent forgetting attribute entries. Similar can apply
to the POLICY flag.
We end up with the following renames:
* nla_parse -> nla_parse_deprecated
* nla_parse_strict -> nla_parse_deprecated_strict
* nlmsg_parse -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated
* nlmsg_parse_strict -> nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict
* nla_parse_nested -> nla_parse_nested_deprecated
* nla_validate_nested -> nla_validate_nested_deprecated
Using spatch, of course:
@@
expression TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_deprecated(TB, MAX, HEAD, LEN, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_parse_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_parse_deprecated_strict(NLH, HDRLEN, TB, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_parse_nested(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
+nla_parse_nested_deprecated(TB, MAX, NLA, POL, EXT)
@@
expression START, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nla_validate_nested(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nla_validate_nested_deprecated(START, MAX, POL, EXT)
@@
expression NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT;
@@
-nlmsg_validate(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
+nlmsg_validate_deprecated(NLH, HDRLEN, MAX, POL, EXT)
For this patch, don't actually add the strict, non-renamed versions
yet so that it breaks compile if I get it wrong.
Also, while at it, make nla_validate and nla_parse go down to a
common __nla_validate_parse() function to avoid code duplication.
Ultimately, this allows us to have very strict validation for every
new caller of nla_parse()/nlmsg_parse() etc as re-introduced in the
next patch, while existing things will continue to work as is.
In effect then, this adds fully strict validation for any new command.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2019-04-26 14:07:28 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 15:54:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-21 18:58:24 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-19 19:49:29 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-20 07:31:31 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-19 19:49:29 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-21 18:58:24 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-20 07:31:31 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-21 18:58:24 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-19 19:49:29 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-20 07:31:31 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-19 19:49:29 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-04 23:03:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-10-27 16:12:16 +09:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-04-30 22:13:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-02 14:49:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-03 10:44:43 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-02 14:49:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-08 12:45:17 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-02 14:49:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
netlink: add infrastructure to expose policies to userspace
Add, and use in generic netlink, helpers to dump out a netlink
policy to userspace, including all the range validation data,
nested policies etc.
This lets userspace discover what the kernel understands.
For families/commands other than generic netlink, the helpers
need to be used directly in an appropriate command, or we can
add some infrastructure (a new netlink family) that those can
register their policies with for introspection. I'm not that
familiar with non-generic netlink, so that's left out for now.
The data exposed to userspace also includes min and max length
for binary/string data, I've done that instead of letting the
userspace tools figure out whether min/max is intended based
on the type so that we can extend this later in the kernel, we
might want to just use the range data for example.
Because of this, I opted to not directly expose the NLA_*
values, even if some of them are already exposed via BPF, as
with min/max length we don't need to have different types here
for NLA_BINARY/NLA_MIN_LEN/NLA_EXACT_LEN, we just make them
all NL_ATTR_TYPE_BINARY with min/max length optionally set.
Similarly, we don't really need NLA_MSECS, and perhaps can
remove it in the future - but not if we encode it into the
userspace API now. It gets mapped to NL_ATTR_TYPE_U64 here.
Note that the exposing here corresponds to the strict policy
interpretation, and NLA_UNSPEC items are omitted entirely.
To get those, change them to NLA_MIN_LEN which behaves in
exactly the same way, but is exposed.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2020-04-30 22:13:12 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-10 02:25:51 +01:00
|
|
|
|
