[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dbccbd5d-8968-43cb-9eca-d19cc12f6515@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 15:33:57 -0800
From: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, thinker.li@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, kernel-team@...a.com,
davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com
Cc: kuifeng@...a.com, syzbot+c15aa445274af8674f41@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/ipv6: insert the fib6 gc_link of a fib6_info
only if in fib6.
On 12/7/23 15:20, David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/7/23 4:17 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 12/7/23 3:16 PM, thinker.li@...il.com wrote:
>>> From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@...il.com>
>>>
>>> Check f6i->fib6_node before inserting a f6i (fib6_info) to tb6_gc_hlist.
>>
>> any place setting expires should know if the entry is in a table or not.
>>
>> And the syzbot report contains a reproducer, a kernel config and other
>> means to test a patch.
>>
>
> Fundamentally, the set and clear helpers are doing 2 things; they need
> to be split into separate helpers.
Sorry, I don't follow you.
There are fib6_set_expires_locked()) and fib6_clean_expires_locked(),
two separate helpers. Is this what you are saying?
Doing checks of f6i->fib6_node in fib6_set_expires_locked() should
already apply everywhere setting expires, right?
Do I miss anything?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists