linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION][4.13.y][4.14.y][v4.15.y] net: reduce skb_warn_bad

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:10:11 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, joseph.salisbury@...onical.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com,
        daniel@...earbox.net, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
        linux@...musvillemoes.dk, john.fastabend@...il.com, me@...in.cc,
        idosch@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        1715609@...s.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][4.13.y][4.14.y][v4.15.y] net: reduce
 skb_warn_bad_offload() noise

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:56:56 -0500

> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 04:25:26PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>> Note that UFO was removed in 4.14 and that skb_warn_bad_offload
>>> can happen for various types of packets, so there may be multiple
>>> independent bug reports. I'm investigating two other non-UFO reports
>>> just now.
>>
>> Meta-comment, now that UFO is gone from mainline, I'm wondering if I
>> should just delete it from 4.4 and 4.9 as well.  Any objections for
>> that?  I'd like to make it easy to maintain these kernels for a while,
>> and having them diverge like this, with all of the issues around UFO,
>> seems like it will just make life harder for myself if I leave it in.
>>
>> Any opinions?
> 
> Some of that removal had to be reverted with commit 0c19f846d582
> ("net: accept UFO datagrams from tuntap and packet") for VM live
> migration between kernels.
> 
> Any backports probably should squash that in at the least. Just today
> another thread discussed that that patch may not address all open
> issues still, so it may be premature to backport at this point.
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<d71df64e-e65f-4db4-6f2e-c002c15fcbe4@...19freenet.de>

I would probably discourage backporting the UFO removal, at least for
now.