[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160705.204755.193524893150572527.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 20:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Cc: sargun@...gun.me, netdev@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: Backport bpf: try harder on clones when writing into skb?
[Commit: 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22]
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:16:51 -0700
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 08:35:18AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
>> Does it make sense to backport
>> 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22 from 4.6 to the longterm
>> (4.4) release? I can trivially recreate the issue represented by
>> 3697649ff29e0f647565eed04b27a7779c646a22 by attaching a eBPF filter
>> that clones an ingress ICMP packet, and then tries to set the
>> destination MAC address.
>>
>> It seems like the patch applies cleanly to 4.4. I cherry-picked it,
>> and rebuilt my kernel, and at least in the trivial test case passes.
>
> Makes sense to me, especially since it's lts.
> Daniel, thoughts?
I'll queued this up for 4.4 -stable.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists