[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 11:30:27 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH IPV6 1/1] ipv6: allocate enough headroom in
ip6_finish_output2()
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 19:41:44 +0200 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 7/7/21 6:42 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:45:13 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
> >> why not use hh_len here?
> >
> > Is there a reason for the new skb? Why not pskb_expand_head()?
>
>
> pskb_expand_head() might crash, if skb is shared.
>
> We possibly can add a helper, factorizing all this,
> and eventually use pskb_expand_head() if safe.
Is there a strategically placed skb_share_check() somewhere further
down? Otherwise there seems to be a lot of questionable skb_cow*()
calls, also __skb_linearize() and skb_pad() are risky, no?
Or is it that shared skbs are uncommon and syzbot doesn't hit them?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists