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 :) Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
