On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 07:13:21AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 4/10/24 02:43, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 03:16:55PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >
> > > dev_write_net() and dev_read_net() should validate the provided cookie.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com>
> > > ---
> > > api/api_net.c | 6 ++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/api/api_net.c b/api/api_net.c
> > > index 7515c26e8b4..0b931a80787 100644
> > > --- a/api/api_net.c
> > > +++ b/api/api_net.c
> > > @@ -72,14 +72,16 @@ int dev_enum_net(struct device_info *di)
> > > int dev_write_net(void *cookie, void *buf, int len)
> > > {
> > > - /* XXX verify that cookie points to a valid net device??? */
> > > + if (!dev_valid_net(cookie))
> > > + return API_ENODEV;
> > > return eth_send(buf, len);
> > > }
> > > int dev_read_net(void *cookie, void *buf, int len)
> > > {
> > > - /* XXX verify that cookie points to a valid net device??? */
> > > + if (!dev_valid_net(cookie))
> > > + return API_ENODEV;
> > > return eth_receive(buf, len);
> > > }
> >
> > Is this right? Probably. But what triggered looking in to this to start
> > with? I don't think anything is enabling the API support these days
> > even.
> >
>
> We should either properly test the API in our CI or or remove it.
>
> What once was done via the API could be done via an EFI payload in a more
> portable way today.Yes, we should indeed likely remove it. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
