netdev - Re: [PATCH net] neighbor: Reset gc_entries counter if new entry is released before insert

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]

Date:   Thu, 06 Jun 2019 11:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jcline@...hat.com
Cc:     dsahern@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ian.kumlien@...il.com,
        alan.maguire@...cle.com, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] neighbor: Reset gc_entries counter if new entry is
 released before insert

From: Jeremy Cline <jcline@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:07:29 -0400

> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 12:41:00AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
>> Date: Wed,  1 May 2019 18:08:34 -0700
>> 
>> > From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
>> > 
>> > Ian and Alan both reported seeing overflows after upgrades to 5.x kernels:
>> >   neighbour: arp_cache: neighbor table overflow!
>> > 
>> > Alan's mpls script helped get to the bottom of this bug. When a new entry
>> > is created the gc_entries counter is bumped in neigh_alloc to check if a
>> > new one is allowed to be created. ___neigh_create then searches for an
>> > existing entry before inserting the just allocated one. If an entry
>> > already exists, the new one is dropped in favor of the existing one. In
>> > this case the cleanup path needs to drop the gc_entries counter. There
>> > is no memory leak, only a counter leak.
>> > 
>> > Fixes: 58956317c8d ("neighbor: Improve garbage collection")
>> > Reported-by: Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@...il.com>
>> > Reported-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
>> 
>> Applied and queued up for -stable.
> 
> Did this get lost in the shuffle? I see it in mainline, but I don't see
> it in stable. Folks are encountering it with recent 5.1 kernels in
> Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708717.

It's there in the -stable queue:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/davem/stable/?series=&submitter=&state=*&q=&archive=

So it will (eventually) get sent.