netdev - Re: [PATCH] sctp: Fix error handling for switch statement case in the function sctp_cmd

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:34:05 -0400
From:	Bastien Philbert <bastienphilbert@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, daniel@...earbox.net
Cc:	vyasevich@...il.com, nhorman@...driver.com,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: Fix error handling for switch statement case in the
 function sctp_cmd_interprete



On 2016-04-05 07:29 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 23:53:52 +0200
> 
>> On 04/05/2016 11:36 PM, Bastien Philbert wrote:
>>> This fixes error handling for the switch statement case
>>> SCTP_CMD_SEND_PKT by making the error value of the call
>>> to sctp_packet_transmit equal the variable error due to
>>> this function being able to fail with a error code. In
>>
>> What actual issue have you observed that you fix?
>>
>>> addition allow the call to sctp_ootb_pkt_free afterwards
>>> to free up the no longer in use sctp packet even if the
>>> call to the function sctp_packet_transmit fails in order
>>> to avoid a memory leak here for not freeing the sctp
>>
>> Not sure how this relates to your code?
> 
> Bastien, I'm seeing a clear negative pattern with the bug fixes
> you are submitting.
> 
> Just now you submitted the ICMP change which obviously was never
> tested because it tried to take the RTNL mutex in atomic context,
> and now this sctp thing.
> 
> If you don't start actually testing your changes and expalining
> clearly what the problem actually is, how you discovered it,
> and how you actually tested your patch, I will start completely
> ignoring your patch submissions.
> 
Ok sure I will be more careful with my future patches. Sorry about those 
two patches :(.
Bastien