[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1521347.1686744278@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 13:04:38 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
syzbot <syzbot+e79818f5c12416aba9de@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [crypto?] general protection fault in cryptd_hash_export
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> David, the logic for calling hash_alloc_result looks quite different
> from that on whether you do the hash finalisation. I'd suggest that
> you change them to use the same check, and also set use NULL instead
> of ctx->result if you didn't call hash_alloc_result.
I don't fully understand what the upstream hash_sendmsg() is doing. Take this
bit for example:
if (!ctx->more) {
if ((msg->msg_flags & MSG_MORE))
hash_free_result(sk, ctx);
Why is it freeing the old result only if MSG_MORE is now set, but wasn't set
on the last sendmsg()?
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists