linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] udp: don't be set unconnected if only UDP cmsg

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

Message-ID: <6621259d66d0f_ec9b929478@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:52:29 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 Yick Xie <yick.xie@...il.com>, 
 willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, 
 willemb@...gle.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 davem@...emloft.net, 
 dsahern@...nel.org, 
 edumazet@...gle.com, 
 kuba@...nel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
 stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] udp: don't be set unconnected if only UDP cmsg

Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 2024-04-17 at 03:03 +0800, Yick Xie wrote:
> > If "udp_cmsg_send()" returned 0 (i.e. only UDP cmsg),
> > "connected" should not be set to 0. Otherwise it stops
> > the connected socket from using the cached route.
> > 
> > Fixes: 2e8de8576343 ("udp: add gso segment cmsg")
> > Signed-off-by: Yick Xie <yick.xie@...il.com>
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> 
> Minor: the patch subj is IMHO a bit confusing, what about removing the
> double negation?
> 
> preserve connect status with UDP-only cmsg
> 
> > ---
> > v2: Add Fixes tag
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240414195213.106209-1-yick.xie@gmail.com/
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/udp.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > index c02bf011d4a6..420905be5f30 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> 
> What about ipv6? why this fix does not apply there, too?

Oops. Thanks Paolo. Yes, this definitely also applies to ipv6.