[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF=yD-K-j-SXC7EuOodUdQ9i8hSezYeF6Y7VzZCeLeC6oxHMAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 23:30:17 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] udp: avoid refcount_t saturation in __udp_gso_segment()
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> For some reason, Willem thought that the issue we fixed for TCP
> in commit 7ec318feeed1 ("tcp: gso: avoid refcount_t warning from
> tcp_gso_segment()") was not relevant for UDP GSO.
>
> But syzbot found its way.
[..]
> Fixes: ad405857b174 ("udp: better wmem accounting on gso")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
> Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Thanks Eric. Yep, I was naive here. I am quite curious what kind of
gso packet syzkaller was able to cook that exceeds the truesize
of its segments.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists