netdev - Re: net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly

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: <d70c35cd-2795-70f1-a7fc-2785c7938fac@datenfreihafen.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 May 2018 16:16:20 +0200
From:   Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Stefan Schmidt <stefan@....samsung.com>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Aring <aring@...atatu.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly

Hello Greg.

On 17.05.2018 10:59, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 05:22:18PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>>
>> Please apply f18fa5de5ba7f1d6650951502bb96a6e4715a948
>>
>> (net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag reassembly) to the 4.16.x stable tree.
>>
>>
>> Earlier trees are not needed as the problem was introduced in 4.16.
> 
> Really?  Commit f18fa5de5ba7 ("net: ieee802154: 6lowpan: fix frag
> reassembly") says it fixes commit 648700f76b03 ("inet: frags: use
> rhashtables for reassembly units") which did not show up until 4.17-rc1:
> 	$ git describe --contains 648700f76b03
> 	v4.17-rc1~148^2~20^2~11
> 
> Also, it did not get backported to 4.16.y, so I don't see how it is
> needed in 4.16-stable.

I guess its time to blush on my side. During the bisection for the
commit that introduced the problem I came to the point where it was
clear to me that it was already in 4.16. This was a while back I have
have honestly no idea how I did this mistake.

I tested again now with plain 4.16 and it works fine.
The fix is also in 4.17-rcX where it actually is needed. In the end I am
glad that it was not introduced and slipped me in an earlier release.

> To verify this, I tried applying the patch, and it totally fails to
> apply to the 4.16.y tree.
> 
> So are you _sure_ you want/need this in 4.16?  If so, can you provide a
> working backport that you have verified works?

No backport needed. I simply screwed up when verifying this for 4.16.
I put on the hat of shame for today and will try harder the next time.

Sorry to have wasted your time on this. :/

regards
Stefan Schmidt