On 12/02/2016 06:05 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>
>
> 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?Yes, how many Filters? 512? Can you test, as I don't have the setup ready? 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
