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  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:   Sat, 15 Aug 2020 19:28:14 -0700
From:   Xie He <>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Network Development <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        Linux X25 <>,
        Martin Schiller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] drivers/net/wan/lapbether: Added needed_tailroom

I took some time to look at the history of needed_tailroom. I found it
was added in this commit:
f5184d267c1a (net: Allow netdevices to specify needed head/tailroom)

The author tried to make use of needed_tailroom at various places in
the kernel by replacing the macro LL_RESERVED_SPACE with his new macro

However, the macro LL_ALLOCATED_SPACE was later found to have
problems. So it was removed 3 years later and was replaced by explicit
handling of needed_tailroom. See:

So maybe only those places considered by these two authors have taken
needed_tailroom into account.

Other places might not have taken needed_tailroom into account because
of the rarity of the usage of needed_tailroom.

The second author also said in the commit message of his Patch 5/6
(which changes af_packet.c), that:
    While auditing LL_ALLOCATED_SPACE I noticed that packet_sendmsg_spkt
    did not include needed_tailroom when allocating an skb.  This isn't
    a fatal error as we should always tolerate inadequate tail room but
    it isn't optimal.

This shows not taking needed_tailroom into account is not a bug but
it'd be better to take it into account.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists