[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180816072349.2ldy75jia3ubqg3u@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:23:49 +0200
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: maowenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, ycheng@...gle.com,
jdw@...zon.de, stable@...r.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 4.4 0/9] fix SegmentSmack in stable branch
(CVE-2018-5390)
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 03:19:12PM +0800, maowenan wrote:
> On 2018/8/16 14:52, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> >
> > My point is that backporting all this into stable 4.4 is quite intrusive
> > so that if we can achieve similar results with a simple fix of an
> > obvious omission, it would be preferrable.
>
> There are five patches in mainline to fix this CVE, only two patches
> have no effect on stable 4.4, the important reason is 4.4 use simple
> queue but mainline use RB tree.
>
> I have tried my best to use easy way to fix this with dropping packets
> 12.5%(or other value) based on simple queue, but the result is not
> very well, so the RB tree is needed and tested result is my desire.
>
> If we only back port two patches but they don't fix the issue, I think
> they don't make any sense.
There is an obvious omission in one of the two patches and Takashi's
patch fixes it. If his follow-up fix (applied on top of what is in
stable 4.4 now) addresses the problem, I would certainly prefer using it
over backporting the whole series.
Michal Kubecek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists