Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:54:46 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: Jason@...c4.com Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David.Laight@...lab.com, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] skbuff: return -EMSGSIZE in skb_to_sgvec to prevent overflow From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:21:51 +0200 > Hey Dave, > > David Laight and I have been discussing offlist. It occurred to both > of us that this could just be turned into a loop because perhaps this > is actually just tail-recursive. Upon further inspection, however, the > way the current algorithm works, it's possible that each of the > fraglist skbs has its own fraglist, which would make this into tree > recursion, which is why in the first place I wanted to place that > limit on it. If that's the case, then the patch I proposed above is > the best way forward. However, perhaps there's the chance that > fraglist skbs having separate fraglists are actually forbidden? Is > this the case? Are there other parts of the API that enforce this > contract? Is it something we could safely rely on here? If you say > yes, I'll send a v7 that makes this into a non-recursive loop. As Sabrina showed, it can happen. There are no such restrictions on the geometry of an SKB.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.