lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: net/can: warning in raw_setsockopt/__alloc_pages_slowpath
From
Date


On 12/02/2016 04:42 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 12/02/2016 04:11 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/02/2016 02:24 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2016 01:43 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> [<ffffffff8369e0de>] raw_setsockopt+0x1be/0x9f0 net/can/raw.c:506
>>>
>>> We should add a check for a sensible optlen....
>>>
>>>> static int raw_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>>>> char __user *optval, unsigned int optlen)
>>>> {
>>>> struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
>>>> struct raw_sock *ro = raw_sk(sk);
>>>> struct can_filter *filter = NULL; /* dyn. alloc'ed filters */
>>>> struct can_filter sfilter; /* single filter */
>>>> struct net_device *dev = NULL;
>>>> can_err_mask_t err_mask = 0;
>>>> int count = 0;
>>>> int err = 0;
>>>>
>>>> if (level != SOL_CAN_RAW)
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> switch (optname) {
>>>>
>>>> case CAN_RAW_FILTER:
>>>> if (optlen % sizeof(struct can_filter) != 0)
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> here...
>>>
>>> if (optlen > 64 * sizeof(struct can_filter))
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> But what is sensible here?
>> 64 filters is way to small IMO.
>>
>> When thinking about picking a bunch of single CAN IDs I would tend to
>> something like 512 filters.
>
> Ok - 64 was just an arbitrary chosen value for demonstration purposes :)
>

:-)

Would you like to send a patch?

Regards,
Oliver

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-02 18:08    [W:0.087 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site