[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <01f85507886e435e97cc86f19abf0661@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 06:44:03 +0000
From: "kongweibin (A)" <kongweibin2@...wei.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...il.com>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chenxiang (EulerOS)" <rose.chen@...wei.com>,
liaichun <liaichun@...wei.com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: 答复: [PATCH net] ipv6: fix panic when forwarding a pkt with no in6 dev
> kongweibin, could you test this patch with your setup?
>
> Thanks,
> Nicolas
>
> net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c index
> e23f058166af..fa63ef2bd99c 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
> @@ -485,7 +485,7 @@ int ip6_forward(struct sk_buff *skb)
> goto drop;
>
> if (!net->ipv6.devconf_all->disable_policy &&
> - !idev->cnf.disable_policy &&
> + (!idev || !idev->cnf.disable_policy) &&
> !xfrm6_policy_check(NULL, XFRM_POLICY_FWD, skb)) {
> __IP6_INC_STATS(net, idev, IPSTATS_MIB_INDISCARDS);
> goto drop;
I have test the patch with my setup, it is OK.
>> kongweibin reported a kernel panic in ip6_forward() when input
>> interface has no in6 dev associated.
>>
>> The following tc commands were used to reproduce this panic:
>> tc qdisc del dev vxlan100 root
>> tc qdisc add dev vxlan100 root netem corrupt 5%
>
>Not sure I understand how these qdisc changes can trigger a NULL idev ?
>
>Do we have another bug, like skb->cb[] content being mangled ?
>
As for why qdisc makes the idev null, I tracked where the iif assigned in ip6_rcv_core,
there is no problem there.
Not sure what has changed that makes the iif value wrong.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists