mbox series

[v2,0/3] netlink: allow NLA_BINARY length range validation

Message ID 20200818081733.10892-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net
Headers show
Series netlink: allow NLA_BINARY length range validation | expand

Message

Johannes Berg Aug. 18, 2020, 8:17 a.m. UTC 
In quite a few places (perhaps particularly in wireless) we need to
validation an NLA_BINARY attribute with both a minimum and a maximum
length. Currently, we can do either of the two, but not both, given
that we have NLA_MIN_LEN (minimum length) and NLA_BINARY (maximum).

Extend the range mechanisms that we use for integer validation to
apply to NLA_BINARY as well.

After converting everything to use NLA_POLICY_MIN_LEN() we can thus
get rid of the NLA_MIN_LEN type since that's now a special case of
NLA_BINARY with a minimum length validation. Similarly, NLA_EXACT_LEN
can be specified using NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN() and also maps to the
new NLA_BINARY validation (min == max == desired length).

Finally, NLA_POLICY_EXACT_LEN_WARN() also gets to be a somewhat
special case of this.

I haven't included the patch here now that converts nl82011 to use
this because it doesn't apply without another cleanup patch, but
we can remove a number of hand-coded min/max length checks and get
better error messages from the general validation code while doing
that.

As I had originally built the netlink policy export to userspace in
a way that has min/max length for NLA_BINARY (for the types that we
used to call NLA_MIN_LEN, NLA_BINARY and NLA_EXACT_LEN) anyway, it
doesn't really change anything there except that now there's a chance
that userspace sees min length < max length, which previously wasn't
possible.


v2:
 * fix the min<max comment to correctly say min<=max

johannes

Comments

David Miller Aug. 18, 2020, 7:29 p.m. UTC | #1 
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:17:30 +0200

> In quite a few places (perhaps particularly in wireless) we need to
> validation an NLA_BINARY attribute with both a minimum and a maximum
> length. Currently, we can do either of the two, but not both, given
> that we have NLA_MIN_LEN (minimum length) and NLA_BINARY (maximum).
> 
> Extend the range mechanisms that we use for integer validation to
> apply to NLA_BINARY as well.
 ...

Series applied, thanks Johannes.