netdev - Re: Change in alloc_skb() behavior in 3.2+ kernels?

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: <1339077710.5083.12.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:01:50 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Change in alloc_skb() behavior in 3.2+ kernels?

On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 13:23 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2012-06-06, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > From: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@...il.com>
> > Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:59:19 +0000 (UTC)
> >
> >> At the time it was written (probably 10+ years ago) it was relying on
> >> the documented API for alloc_skb() that stated alloc_skb() either
> >> returned an sk_buff of the requested size or it failed.
> >
> > It was never a formal API that we would only allocate 'size'
> > amount of tailroom.
> 
> How can you say that?

Documentation was stale, so what ?

kmalloc(99) doesnt allocate 99 bytes but 128, so what ?

Grant, what about you fix your code ?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html