netdev - RE: [PATCH] gianfar: Fix invalid TX frames returned on error queue when time stamping.

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:	Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:43:10 +0100
From:	Manfred Rudigier <manfred.rudigier@...cron.at>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"afleming@...escale.com" <afleming@...escale.com>,
	"avorontsov@...sta.com" <avorontsov@...sta.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] gianfar: Fix invalid TX frames returned on error queue
 when time stamping.

From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@...il.com]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:59

>Le lundi 09 janvier 2012 à 10:36 +0100, Manfred Rudigier a écrit :
>
>> I have tried your suggested steal sequence, but it crashed.
>> I see that there is also a destructor - when I use the skb_orphan function
>(which calls the destructor) like this it works:
>>
>> 	skb_new->sk = skb->sk;
>> 	skb_orphan(skb);
>> 	kfree_skb(skb);
>>
>> Is this the correct solution?
>
>I dont think so.
>
>destructor and sk are coupled, you cant steal one and let the other
>untouched.

If I understand you correctly, we must also steal the destructor like this:

	skb_new->sk = skb->sk;
	skb_new->destructor = skb->destructor;
	skb->sk = NULL;
	skb->destructor = NULL;
	kfree_skb(skb);

Then the destructor will be called at the end of the skb_tstamp_tx function, which should be fine, right?