[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [PATCH] new audit rule interface

On Wednesday 04 January 2006 22:36, Amy Griffis wrote:
> I understand the situation you're trying to address, but PATH_MAX may
> not make sense as a bound for other string fields.

Do you know of any that will be bigger? I can't think of any. The size can be 
adjusted up if we ever need to.

> Wouldn't checking the specified string field length against the actual size
> of the provided buffer suffice?

No. We could fall victim to some attack that overflows the variable and 
appears to be correct.

> > > > > +/* Pack a filter field's string representation into data block. */
> > > > > +static inline int audit_pack_string(void **bufp, char *str)
> > > >
> > > > What calls this?
> > >
> > > This should be called by a consumer from the switch in
> > > audit_krule_to_xprt().
> >
> > I really need to see the consumer to finish evaluating the use of the
> > interface.
> Makes sense.  I'll post a consumer patch with the next iteration.

I just need to see a little more. The unpacking I think is all I need to see 
to make sure this interface can't be abused.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]