netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: prefer sk_skb_reason

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: <CAJwJo6abp+GfM4taWhfNfDT3_VCovfGG2v8p9P_sk3ATn2KcBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 19:08:21 +0100
From: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, 
	Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, 
	Daniel Zahka <daniel.zahka@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: prefer sk_skb_reason_drop()

On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 19:02, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 10:56 AM Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 14:20, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Replace two calls to kfree_skb_reason() with sk_skb_reason_drop().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > > Cc: Daniel Zahka <daniel.zahka@...il.com>
> > > Cc: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
> >
> > LGTM, thanks!
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
> >
> > Side-note: I see that tcp_ao_transmit_skb() can currently fail only
> > due to ENOMEM, IIRC I haven't found more specific reason at that time
> > than just SKB_DROP_REASON_NOT_SPECIFIED, unsure if worth changing
> > that.
>
> We could then use SKB_DROP_REASON_NOMEM.

Yeah, I think I wasn't sure if it's worth just due to one place. But
if it's generally useful, I'd say we could :-)

Thanks,
             Dmitry