netdev - Re: [PATCH net] r8169: fix accessing unset transport header

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1ca36910-31c0-ead6-d19e-c200eff752b4@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jul 2022 21:18:43 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Erhard F.\"" <erhard_f@...lbox.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] r8169: fix accessing unset transport header

On 05.07.2022 21:12, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 14:46:14 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> On Mon, 2022-07-04 at 00:12 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> 66e4c8d95008 ("net: warn if transport header was not set") added
>>> a check that triggers a warning in r8169, see [0].
>>>
>>> [0] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216157
>>>
>>> Fixes: 8d520b4de3ed ("r8169: work around RTL8125 UDP hw bug")
>>> Reported-by: Erhard F. <erhard_f@...lbox.org>
>>> Tested-by: Erhard F. <erhard_f@...lbox.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>  
>>
>> The patch LGTM, but I think you could mention in the commit message
>> that the bug was [likely] introduced with commit bdfa4ed68187 ("r8169:
>> use Giant Send"), but this change applies only on top of the commit
>> specified by the fixes tag - just to help stable teams.
> 
> How about we put Eric's patch under Fixes? The patch is not really
> needed unless the warning is there.

This would also be an option. It just seemed a little illogical to me
to leave the impression a new (useful) warning needs to be fixed.
Just a few seconds ago I sent a v2 following Paolo's proposal.