netdev - Re: [PATCH] drivers/net/wan/x25

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]

Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:07:10 +0200
From:   Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
To:     Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>,
        Martin Habets <mhabets@...arflare.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux X25 <linux-x25@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/net/wan/x25_asy: Fix to make it work

On 2020-07-08 21:04, Xie He wrote:
> From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:13 AM -0700
>> Something's not right, because I find it hard to believe this has been
>> so fundamentally broken for such a long period of time.
>> 
>> Maybe the drivers all handle things differently, and whilst your 
>> change
>> might fix some drivers, it will break others.
>> 
>> I'm not applying this until this situation is better understood.
> 
> Yes, it was hard for me to believe, too.
> 
> At first when I tried this driver, it was silently not able to 
> establish
> LAPB connections, I found that it was because it was ignoring
> 2-byte frames. I changed it to make 2-byte frames pass. Then I
> encountered kernel panic. I don't know how to solve it, so I looked
> at the way "lapbether" does things and changed this driver according
> to the "lapbether" driver. And it worked.
> 
> The "lapbether" driver and this driver both use the "lapb" module to
> implement the LAPB protocol, so they should implement LAPB-related
> code in the same way.
> 
> This patch only changes this driver and does not affect other drivers.
> 
> I don't know how I can better explain this situation. Please tell me
> anything I can do to help. Thanks!

It really seems very strange that this driver seems to contain such
fundamental errors. I have never used it.

But the explanations and fixes look plausible to me.