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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <854D089B-1932-45B0-8501-9C374FCA3F3B@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:23:10 +0800
From:   严海双 <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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



> On 8 Jun 2017, at 9:59 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Ok, thanks.