Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:38:46 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Cc:     pshelar@ovn.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        dev@openvswitch.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] openvswitch: Fix condition check by using nla_ok()
Message-ID: <20210916073846.31b43b2a@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210916073640.7e87718a@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <1631756603-3706451-1-git-send-email-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
        <20210916073640.7e87718a@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:36:40 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 01:43:23 +0000 Jiasheng Jiang wrote:
> > Just using 'rem > 0' might be unsafe, so it's better
> > to use the nla_ok() instead.
> > Because we can see from the nla_next() that
> > '*remaining' might be smaller than 'totlen'. And nla_ok()
> > will avoid it happening.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>  
> 
> Are the attributes coming from the user space here or are generated 
> by the kernel / were already validated?  Depending on that this is
> either a fix and needs to be backported or a possible cleanup.
> 
> Please repost with the explanation where attrs come from in the commit
> message, and if it's indeed a bug please add a Fixes tag.

And please use different subject for each patch, otherwise patchwork
bot thinks this is just two versions of the same patch and marks the 
one posted earlier as Superseded.

> If we do need the nla_ok() we should probably also switch to
> nla_for_each_attr() and nla_for_each_nested().