linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] NFC: pn533: use nfc_alloc_recv

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

Message-ID: <20160501231736.GC19653@zurbaran.home>
Date:	Mon, 2 May 2016 01:17:36 +0200
From:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Michael Thalmeier <michael.thalmeier@...e.at>
Cc:	Lauro Ramos Venancio <lauro.venancio@...nbossa.org>,
	Aloisio Almeida Jr <aloisio.almeida@...nbossa.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfc@...ts.01.org,
	michael@...lmeier.at
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] NFC: pn533: use nfc_alloc_recv_skb for skb
 allocation

Hi Michael,

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 04:43:57PM +0200, Michael Thalmeier wrote:
> When multiple receive frames need to be put together in pn533_build_response
> we need to use nfc_alloc_recv_skb instead of the normal alloc_skb. Otherwise
> the nfc core causes an skb error when it tries to push the status byte in
> front of the data.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Thalmeier <michael.thalmeier@...e.at>
> ---
>  drivers/nfc/pn533/pn533.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/nfc/pn533/pn533.c b/drivers/nfc/pn533/pn533.c
> index c06d22f..ae13277 100644
> --- a/drivers/nfc/pn533/pn533.c
> +++ b/drivers/nfc/pn533/pn533.c
> @@ -1942,7 +1942,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *pn533_build_response(struct pn533 *dev)
>  	dev_dbg(dev->dev, "%s total length %d\n",
>  		__func__, skb_len);
>  
> -	skb = alloc_skb(skb_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	skb = nfc_alloc_recv_skb(skb_len, GFP_KERNEL);
That looks reasonable. What surprises me is that I'm pretty sure this
got tested (MI bit set on the Rx path)...
Do you get the error from rawsock_add_header() ?

Cheers,
Samuel.