[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1391007225.28432.29.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:53:45 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Andre Naujoks <nautsch2@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, socketcan@...tkopp.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 3.11+] can: bcm: add skb destructor
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 09:47 +0100, Andre Naujoks wrote:
> On 29.01.2014 08:46, schrieb David Miller:
> > From: Andre Naujoks <nautsch2@...il.com>
> > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:40:03 +0100
> >
> >> Even if this is a bug in the CAN BCM implementation. Your "fix" just
> >> enabled a user space application to shut down any machine with a kernel
> >> containing the BUG_ON patch.
> >
> > Rather, he detected a potential stray pointer reference to freed data
> > that was caused by the CAN code which would difficult if not
> > impossible to detect otherwise.
> >
> > That's even more dangerous, and you should be thanking him.
>
> "potential" is the keyword here. But its a definite kernel crash as it
> is right now with a standard use case for the BCM.
>
> Don't get me wrong. If there are bugs in the code, they should be fixed,
> but I don't think breaking a working (even if flawed) part of the kernel
> is the right thing to do here.
Shall I remember you this patch was suggested by David Miller, our
beloved network maintainer ?
Really this is quite silly, I'll tell you.
I can send a patch to mark CAN as BROKEN if you want, or you can send an
appropriate patch.
Your resistance is futile.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists