| Message ID | 530C3B07.3090406@windriver.com |
|---|---|
| State | Awaiting Upstream, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:41:11PM +0800, Fan Du wrote: > > > On 2014年02月20日 17:59, Steffen Klassert wrote: > >For now I think we should just refuse to do anything if someone tries > >to configure ipsec with 32 bit tools on a 64 bit machine. > > I'm fine with your point, and it would be a good choice to inform user about > this behavior other than just creating non-working SA and SP for user. > > > From 873812ec0fe8738f476de58a217e58ec47665180 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Fan Du <fan.du@windriver.com> > Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:34:41 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH net-next] xfrm: Do not parse 32bits compiled xfrm netlink msg on > 64bits host > > structure like xfrm_usersa_info or xfrm_userpolicy_info has different sizeof > when compiled as 32bits and 64bits due to not appending pack attribute in > their definition. This will result in broken SA and SP information when user > trying to configure them through netlink interface. > > Before forging a compatibility layer like we have it for system calls to map > this correct. Inform user land about this situation instead of keeping silent, > then the upper test scripts could behave accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Fan Du <fan.du@windriver.com> I'm ok with your patch, but it does not apply to ipsec-next. Please rebase to ipsec-next current and resend. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 14:41 +0800, Fan Du wrote: > > On 2014年02月20日 17:59, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > For now I think we should just refuse to do anything if someone tries > > to configure ipsec with 32 bit tools on a 64 bit machine. > > I'm fine with your point, and it would be a good choice to inform user about > this behavior other than just creating non-working SA and SP for user. > > > From 873812ec0fe8738f476de58a217e58ec47665180 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Fan Du <fan.du@windriver.com> > Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:34:41 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH net-next] xfrm: Do not parse 32bits compiled xfrm netlink msg on > 64bits host > > structure like xfrm_usersa_info or xfrm_userpolicy_info has different sizeof > when compiled as 32bits and 64bits due to not appending pack attribute in > their definition. This will result in broken SA and SP information when user > trying to configure them through netlink interface. > > Before forging a compatibility layer like we have it for system calls to map > this correct. Inform user land about this situation instead of keeping silent, > then the upper test scripts could behave accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Fan Du <fan.du@windriver.com> > --- > net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c > index 1ae3ec7..0249712 100644 > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c > @@ -2347,6 +2347,10 @@ static int xfrm_user_rcv_msg(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh) > const struct xfrm_link *link; > int type, err; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT > + if (is_compat_task()) > + return -EPERM; I think this needs a log message, as it is not at all obvious that EPERM means you ran a binary from the 'wrong' architecture. Ben. > +#endif > type = nlh->nlmsg_type; > if (type > XFRM_MSG_MAX) > return -EINVAL;
Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On 2014年02月20日 17:59, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > > For now I think we should just refuse to do anything if someone tries > > > to configure ipsec with 32 bit tools on a 64 bit machine. > > > > I'm fine with your point, and it would be a good choice to inform user about > > this behavior other than just creating non-working SA and SP for user. It might be better to try to revive http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/157118/focus=157122 which adds full compat support. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:16:02 +0100 > Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: >> > On 2014年02月20日 17:59, Steffen Klassert wrote: >> > > For now I think we should just refuse to do anything if someone tries >> > > to configure ipsec with 32 bit tools on a 64 bit machine. >> > >> > I'm fine with your point, and it would be a good choice to inform user about >> > this behavior other than just creating non-working SA and SP for user. > > It might be better to try to revive > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/157118/focus=157122 > > which adds full compat support. Agreed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c index 1ae3ec7..0249712 100644 --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c @@ -2347,6 +2347,10 @@ static int xfrm_user_rcv_msg(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh) const struct xfrm_link *link; int type, err; +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT + if (is_compat_task()) + return -EPERM; +#endif type = nlh->nlmsg_type; if (type > XFRM_MSG_MAX) return -EINVAL;