On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 02:13:30PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 15:53:29 +0100
Enrique Llorente <ellorent(a)redhat.com> wrote:
The logic composing the DHCP reply message is
reusing the request
message to compose the it, this kind be problematic from a security
Does "be problematic" imply "would be ... once we add longer
options"?
context and may break the functionality.
Which one? This is important to know for distribution maintainers and,
ultimately, users.
Right, as a general rule commit messages be specific and concrete
about what the problem they're address is.
This looks about right ?
The logic composing the DHCP reply message is reusing the request
message to compose it, future long options like FQDN may
exceed the request message limit making it go beyond the lower
bound.
This change create a new reply message with a fixed options size of 308
and fill it in with proper fields from requests adding on top the generated
options, this way the reply lower bound does not depend on the request.
--
David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way
| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
--
Quique Llorente
CNV networking Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat EMEA
ellorent(a)redhat.com
@RedHat Red Hat Red Hat