netdev - Re: [Patch] rose_route_frame() NULL pointer dereference kernel panic

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:	Sat, 05 Mar 2016 11:22:26 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	f6bvp@...e.fr
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] rose_route_frame() NULL pointer dereference kernel
 panic

From: f6bvp <f6bvp@...e.fr>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:32:42 +0100

> I understand I did not explain clearly or completely things.
> 
> I agree that each time patched rose_xmit() is calling
> rose_route_frame() it will
> get a 0 return.
> And I think this is what was intended by the author of rose_xmit().

If that's what he intended he would have implemented the entirety of
rose_xmit() as "kfree_skb(skb)".  But that's obviously not the case.

The author meant the packet to be sent in some way, perhaps using a
default path or something like that.

So please stop telling me over and over again that this function
is meant to simply drop all packets, it's not true.