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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20230522172302.90235-1-sj@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 17:23:02 +0000 From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> To: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, nmanthey@...zon.de, pabeni@...hat.com, ptyadav@...zon.de, willemb@...gle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: fix skb leak in __skb_tstamp_tx() On Mon, 22 May 2023 17:18:53 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2023 10:04:30 -0700 Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com> wrote: > > > From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> > > Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 16:55:05 +0000 > > > Hi Pratyush, > > > > > > On Mon, 22 May 2023 17:30:20 +0200 Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@...zon.de> wrote: > > > > > > > Commit 50749f2dd685 ("tcp/udp: Fix memleaks of sk and zerocopy skbs with > > > > TX timestamp.") added a call to skb_orphan_frags_rx() to fix leaks with > > > > zerocopy skbs. But it ended up adding a leak of its own. When > > > > skb_orphan_frags_rx() fails, the function just returns, leaking the skb > > > > it just cloned. Free it before returning. > > > > > > > > This bug was discovered and resolved using Coverity Static Analysis > > > > Security Testing (SAST) by Synopsys, Inc. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 50749f2dd685 ("tcp/udp: Fix memleaks of sk and zerocopy skbs with TX timestamp.") > > > > > > Seems the commit has merged in several stable kernels. Is the bug also > > > affecting those? If so, would it be better to Cc stable@...r.kernel.org? > > > > In netdev, we add 'net' in Subject for bugfix, then netdev maintainers > > send a pull request weekly, and stable maintainers backport the fixes to > > affected trees. > > > > So we usually need not CC stable for netdev patches. > > Thank you for the nice explanation! Seems it is also well documented at > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.10/networking/netdev-FAQ.html#q-i-see-a-network-patch-and-i-think-it-should-be-backported-to-stable > > However, I don't show the 'net' subject rule on the document. Is it documented > somewhere else? Seems I overlooked this: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.10/networking/netdev-FAQ.html#q-how-do-i-indicate-which-tree-net-vs-net-next-my-patch-should-be-in Thanks, SJ > > > Thanks, > SJ > > > > > Thanks, > > Kuniyuki > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists