[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231219110015.GG811967@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 11:00:15 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+f43a23b6e622797c7a28@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
martin.lau@...ux.dev, daniel@...earbox.net,
john.fastabend@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, song@...nel.org,
yonghong.song@...ux.dev, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: use nla_ok() instead of checking nla_len
directly
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 03:19:04PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> nla_len may also be too short to be sane, in which case after
> recent changes nla_len() will return a wrapped value.
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+f43a23b6e622797c7a28@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Fixes: 172db56d90d2 ("netlink: Return unsigned value for nla_len()")
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists