netdev - Re: linux-next: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference in __sk_mem_raise

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]

Message-ID: <1479200239.4660.3.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:57:19 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
 dereference in __sk_mem_raise_allocated()

On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 16:31 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 15:58 -0800, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Yes, you are right. It works if we set .memory_allocated and .sysctl_mem.
> 
> Now the question would be :
> 
> Are we okay if UDP and UDPlite share the same limits ?
> 
> I would vote for yes, because these default limits are huge anyway
> (The 50% reduction done in
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b66e91ccbc34ebd5a2f90f9e1bc1597e2924a500
> only impacted TCP )

Thank you for jumping on this so early!

I'm sorry for the udplite left over: my fault.

I agree with sharing the limits between UDP and UDPlite. I think that
the current ones are so high we can apply also a similar reduction to
UDP (and SCTP, too)

Cheers,

Paolo