linux-kernel - Re: [net] 34fad54c25: kernel BUG at include/linux/skbuff.h:1935!

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:56:58 +0800
From:   Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
To:     "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Cc:     "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "willemb@...gle.com" <willemb@...gle.com>,
        "lkp@...org" <lkp@...org>, "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [net]  34fad54c25: kernel BUG at include/linux/skbuff.h:1935!

On 11/16, Duyck, Alexander H wrote:
>On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 05:20 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>>From what I can tell it looks like the size of the frame is 0x160 hex,
>or 352.  For whatever reason we are only pulling 8 bytes into the
>header which is giving us an skb->len of 352 (0x160), and a skb-
>>data_len of 344 (0x158).  When we go to pull the 14 bytes for the
>Ethernet header we end up at a skb->len of 338 (0x152) which is
>resulting in the panic.
>
>The question is how are we coming up with 8 instead of 14 which is the
>lowest limit supported by eth_get_headlen? My first thought was there
>is an incorrect sizeof(eth) instead of the sizeof(*eth) somewhere in
>the code but I can't find anything like that anywhere.
>
>Is there any way you can provide me with the net/ethernet/eth.o and
>drivers/net/ethernet/igb/igb.o files?  With that I can look over the

Is vmlinux ok for you? I've sent it to you separately.

Btw: I've also tried gcc-5 (Debian 5.4.1-2) 5.4.1 20160904, and the
result shows the same failures.

Thanks,
Xiaolong