netdev - RE: [PATCH] usbnet: Fix dma setup for fragmented packets that need a pad byte appended.

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]

Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:48:23 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Eric Dumazet' <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] usbnet: Fix dma setup for fragmented packets that need
 a pad byte appended.

From: Eric Dumazet 
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 11:16 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > If the usbnet code appends a byte to a fragmented packet (in order to avoid
> > sending a bulk data message that is a multiple of the USB message size) then
> > the scatter-gather list isn't initialised correctly.
> > This causes a later panic in usb_hcd_map_urb_for_dma().
> > Basically when the code tries to access the final sg fragment the sg function
> > returns NULL because the 'end of sg list' market is set in the previous one.
> >
> > Bug introduced in commit 60e453a940ac678565b6641d65f8c18541bb9f28
> > (USBNET: fix handling padding packet) and needs applying to all
> > kernels that contain this change (including 3.12).
> >
> > Fix from Bjorn Mork.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>
> > ---
> >
> > I think it is ok that the sg table's last element is never assigned to when
> > the packet isn't padded.
> 
> Original patch contained :
> 
> Fixes: 60e453a940ac ("USBNET: fix handling padding packet")
> Reported-by: Thomas Kear <thomas@...r.co.nz>
> Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
> 
> Why did you remove this and took ownership of this patch ?

I couldn't find the original patch anywhere!
I did do quite a lot of looking as well - if I'd found it I've
have done something else.

In any case the intent was just to get the patch into 6.13 and stable
(for 6.12).
I don't care which version you apply.

Add a 'Reviewed by' for me if you want.

	David