netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ip6_tunnel: fix potential issue in __ip6_tnl

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:   Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:59:58 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com
Cc:     alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ip6_tunnel: fix potential issue in __ip6_tnl_rcv

From: 严海双 <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:33:58 +0800

>> On 8 Jun 2017, at 1:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:56:58PM +0800, 严海双 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 8 Jun 2017, at 12:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:32:44PM +0800, Haishuang Yan wrote:
>>>>> When __ip6_tnl_rcv fails, the tun_dst won't be freed, so call
>>>>> dst_release to free it in error code path.
>>>>> 
>>>>> CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
>>>>> Fixes: 8d79266bc48c ("ip6_tunnel: add collect_md mode to IPv6 tunnels")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com>
>>>> 
>>>> I don't get it. Why did you send another version of the patch?
>>>> What was wrong with previous approach that myself and Eric acked?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sorry for your confusing, because Pravin Shelar give a feedback in ipv4 patch, see below:
>> 
>> hmm. right.
>> Then it raises the question: How did you test this and previous patch?
>> 
>> since previous version was sort-of fixing the bug, but completely
>> breaking the logic...
>> 
>> 
> 
> Sorry for my previous fault, I tried to fix this problem in theory without testing carefully.
> I have tested the latest patches, it works ok now.

This does not instill a lot of confidence in us.

I want someone else to test these patches, then you can resubmit them
with proper Tested-by: tags added, since you thought it was OK to submit
a patch without testing in the first place.