From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6EEC04AB6 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 16:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133DF26BD0 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 16:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="S3GztADF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726835AbfEaQM5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 12:12:57 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-f67.google.com ([209.85.217.67]:34566 "EHLO mail-vs1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726037AbfEaQM4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 12:12:56 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-f67.google.com with SMTP id q64so7057461vsd.1; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2FrzY2ydP6cRNV+r5FtjF3XxLGeE0yW0UZ3D62L58K8=; b=S3GztADFEAoU+iw/DnAiHFJ3lrTsPcmRSrKsm/LzCege+lnNoRkyVn/FELbj4RaZuI m1jwpfvPsd6GEv2I+N6KmXzxt7p59N5Yax/hj4JVDhA7OtPXVm1avoeqMZZXy8rKePup fxPb+68HFJLF7c5/upjWaYPIGfg6BgVQfewJO6HIoBXRTpihL9NEJRE0WEpPBxjzRQ6Y UGYbiORtjNwxie/uELHw9dOY06/YsERdaU/eaVhF4rA7C+Fpr1yFqJmRUPaSlwWBkaq9 Zv6sUldoUN9qmIclWOz12WHQOp4V65Jsz9DpvE0W6vg0d4ut+3TM4ftdhn4111umrPAr MwxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2FrzY2ydP6cRNV+r5FtjF3XxLGeE0yW0UZ3D62L58K8=; b=cqoEm2LePBt7guTkKjLnTnDCCIfYWGjMpNW5Ldkd7aWwFX/XEb28Q7zPA6j9+HSonP GnQQtlKcEuEXMP8PJ72iVWv4KR4R9t72FcK0O/gHXrzpeZfsxm9u/kFmxNSGEHnwzuFY vA9iPux0qLSFUq3GtQw2HN6sfqimlM7E0hQPXd0D9cPg4sW6entckxhhQHbYoMt2XrdT rZpWPfr7FOUXqVo36qgeKv71i3OVmgRq4p3/wbVUK4B8Hq4OX5wQfobRJUVJOScx4nLe LSs9Y5kphGRLwE0ONyGU4eTTNkCS77uf8BgQYpXMaECz/RLx+cUTirvlgk6+tgv1UxTo 4KEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUACi237cK9vJ4RoQRrLmAfk9e9D7pB98jZJf9hmMk0/baUQ/sY ORxmBs/GG1O4+bTAyk5ITL9cIAdFjyGlQJfTNbE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzpClzX/KpZ2ht67YbTaKY+nKDPKhMXtzGMq+1rT3NpFl0F8uttTZW6AktbeDItrcpGTvJGLINAhxENtCRIxoY= X-Received: by 2002:a67:d68e:: with SMTP id o14mr6221973vsj.140.1559319175577; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1559230098-1543-1-git-send-email-92siuyang@gmail.com> <20190531062911.c6jusfbzgozqk2cu@gondor.apana.org.au> <727c4b18-0d7b-b3c6-e0bb-41b3fe5902d3@gmail.com> <20190531145428.ngwrgbnk2a7us5cy@gondor.apana.org.au> <56a41977-6f9e-08dd-e4e2-07207324d536@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <56a41977-6f9e-08dd-e4e2-07207324d536@gmail.com> From: Yang Xiao <92siuyang@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 00:12:19 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Prevent overrun when parsing v6 header options To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Herbert Xu , David Miller , Alexey Kuznetsov , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , netdev , LKML , Steffen Klassert Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:57 PM Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > On 5/31/19 7:54 AM, Herbert Xu wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 07:50:06AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> > >> What do you mean by should ? > >> > >> Are they currently already linearized before the function is called, > >> or is it missing and a bug needs to be fixed ? > > > > AFAICS this is the code-path for locally generated outbound packets. > > Under what circumstances can the IPv6 header be not in the head? > > > > > > I guess this means we had yet another random submission from Young Xiao :/ Excuse me, what do you mean about random submission from Young? A month ago, I submitted the patch, and I was told that the format should be correct. Then, I resubmitted again. > > Thanks. >