netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] sock: Correct error checking condition for (assign|release)_proto

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

Message-ID: <CANn89i+-V5G7XTDEd01gH_+efCDMGA4hdF7uRjYv6bsEqkoQOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 10:04:44 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: zijun_hu@...oud.com, dada1@...mosbay.com, davem@...emloft.net, 
	horms@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com, 
	willemb@...gle.com, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] sock: Correct error checking condition for (assign|release)_proto_idx()

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 5:53 AM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com> wrote:
>
> > [PATCH net-next v2] sock: Correct error checking condition for (assign|release)_proto_idx()
>
> Maybe net instead of net-next ?
>

I think this is a minor change, I would not add a Fixes: tag and risk
another CVE for such a case that is never reached.

We do not have 63 protocols, getting to 64 limit is moot.

As a matter of fact, release_proto_idx(struct proto *prot) should
never hit the condition.