* [PATCH 1/1] ax25: Fix segfault after sock connection timeout @ 2017-01-14 20:18 Basil Gunn 2017-01-16 19:40 ` David Miller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Basil Gunn @ 2017-01-14 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joerg Reuter, Ralf Baechle, David S. Miller, linux-hams, netdev, linux-kernel Cc: stable, Jeremy McDermond, f6bvp The ax.25 socket connection timed out & the sock struct has been previously taken down ie. sock struct is now a NULL pointer. Checking the sock_flag causes the segfault. Check if the socket struct pointer is NULL before checking sock_flag. This segfault is seen in timed out netrom connections. Please submit to -stable. Signed-off-by: Basil Gunn <basil@pacabunga.com> --- diff --git a/net/ax25/ax25_subr.c b/net/ax25/ax25_subr.c index 4855d18..038b109 100644 --- a/net/ax25/ax25_subr.c +++ b/net/ax25/ax25_subr.c @@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ void ax25_disconnect(ax25_cb *ax25, int reason) { ax25_clear_queues(ax25); - if (!sock_flag(ax25->sk, SOCK_DESTROY)) + if (!ax25->sk || !sock_flag(ax25->sk, SOCK_DESTROY)) ax25_stop_heartbeat(ax25); ax25_stop_t1timer(ax25); ax25_stop_t2timer(ax25); ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] ax25: Fix segfault after sock connection timeout 2017-01-14 20:18 [PATCH 1/1] ax25: Fix segfault after sock connection timeout Basil Gunn @ 2017-01-16 19:40 ` David Miller [not found] ` <1a4ee351-031c-932e-0332-779ce33e90e6@trinnet.net> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2017-01-16 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: basil Cc: jreuter, ralf, linux-hams, netdev, linux-kernel, stable, mcdermj, f6bvp From: Basil Gunn <basil@pacabunga.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:18:55 -0800 > The ax.25 socket connection timed out & the sock struct has been > previously taken down ie. sock struct is now a NULL pointer. Checking > the sock_flag causes the segfault. Check if the socket struct pointer > is NULL before checking sock_flag. This segfault is seen in > timed out netrom connections. > > Please submit to -stable. > > Signed-off-by: Basil Gunn <basil@pacabunga.com> This is consistent with the ax25->sk NULL check later in this function. Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1a4ee351-031c-932e-0332-779ce33e90e6@trinnet.net>]
[parent not found: <20170201080217.4d8443bb@brox.localnet>]
[parent not found: <3e3f25fc-fc60-c01b-1139-245284200656@trinnet.net>]
[parent not found: <39dad041-f224-735e-adb7-e0fb42771858@free.fr>]
[parent not found: <25ee9245-3595-85f7-93b8-a18d6066a2e3@free.fr>]
[parent not found: <07a1454e-99a2-8cec-d50a-006257687c2e@free.fr>]
[parent not found: <12e0547b-cb2c-1ca0-abc0-d849d8a62139@trinnet.net>]
[parent not found: <598de982-d655-22bd-c5ba-2d9114f9fb7c@free.fr>]
* Re: [BUG] AX.25 sockets not destroyed [not found] ` <598de982-d655-22bd-c5ba-2d9114f9fb7c@free.fr> @ 2017-02-23 17:56 ` Ralf Baechle DL5RB 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ralf Baechle DL5RB @ 2017-02-23 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: f6bvp; +Cc: David Ranch, Basil Gunn, Thomas Osterried, linux-hams On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 02:53:36PM +0100, f6bvp wrote: > ffff8c80b5ed5800 ax0 F6BVP-7 F4BWT-9 1 0 0 0 18446744073709549 100 0 3 0 300 0 0 9 10 5 2 256 * * * > ffff8c80b5ed5400 ax0 F6BVP-7 WA3MEZ-9 1 0 0 0 18446744073709549 100 0 3 0 300 0 0 9 10 5 2 256 * * * > then it displays a very large number for a while, The large number is an already expired t1 timer. That means the time to expiry is relativly small negative number like -1616 or as a hex number 0xfffffffffffff9b0 which will be divied by HZ (probably 1000) and displayed as a something like 18446744073709550. Looking further into it. Ralf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3d0e170e-3995-84d0-007e-3d2065296237@free.fr>]
[parent not found: <9f9dba49-c2a5-41e8-9382-9154802e7fbf@trinnet.net>]
[parent not found: <20170327163641.0f992e2d@brox.localnet>]
* Interesting Rose patch [not found] ` <20170327163641.0f992e2d@brox.localnet> @ 2017-04-11 17:26 ` f6bvp 2017-04-12 8:19 ` f6bvp 2017-04-12 20:43 ` Walter Harms 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: f6bvp @ 2017-04-11 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Basil Gunn, David Ranch Cc: C Schuman, Richard Stearn, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, linux-hams Hi, I want to acknowledge here a set of very usefull ROSE patches provided by richard Stearn. Since years, it has not been possible to set rose0 device down without creating an endless loop of kernel waiting for rose to become free. Richard found that a number of dev_put(dev) were missing. Applying the following patch subset cured the issue and allowed a clean rose module removal. The following patches are part of a larger series committed by Richard but rejected by Dave Miller mostly for format reasons. I selected and checked the minimal changes necessary to cure the refcount issue. See : http://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=146873255413533&w=2 Richard does not want to jump in again. So I would appreciate if someone could help us by confirming that this patch is extremely convenient. Then someone could submit this subset to linux-hams and linux-netdev referees. 73 de Bernard, f6bvp ---------------------------------------- diff -ruN a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.205800053 +0200 +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.290052819 +0200 @@ -688,8 +688,10 @@ rose->source_call = user->call; ax25_uid_put(user); } else { - if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) + if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) { + dev_put(dev); return -EACCES; + } rose->source_call = *source; } @@ -710,6 +712,7 @@ rose_insert_socket(sk); sock_reset_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED); + dev_put(dev); return 0; } diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c --- a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.206800010 +0200 +++ b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.291052777 +0200 @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ if ((dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { if (rose_rx_call_request(skb, dev, rose_loopback_neigh, lci_o) == 0) kfree_skb(skb); + dev_put(dev); } else { kfree_skb(skb); } diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_route.c b/net/rose/rose_route.c --- a/net/rose/rose_route.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.207799967 +0200 +++ b/net/rose/rose_route.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.290052819 +0200 @@ -875,6 +875,11 @@ src_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + ROSE_CALL_REQ_SRC_ADDR_OFF); dest_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + ROSE_CALL_REQ_DEST_ADDR_OFF); + if (ax25 == NULL) { + printk(KERN_ERR "rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL\n"); + return res; + } + spin_lock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock); spin_lock_bh(&rose_route_list_lock); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting Rose patch 2017-04-11 17:26 ` Interesting Rose patch f6bvp @ 2017-04-12 8:19 ` f6bvp 2017-04-12 20:43 ` Walter Harms 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: f6bvp @ 2017-04-12 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: linux-hams Hi, Here is a short add to my previous post. Actually rose_route.c patch is independant from the others but very important as it removes a rare but fatal bug causing kernel panic. I could observed the bug after adding an IP address to a secondary network to an ethernet port but without giving a route to this network. Obviously it should be the subject of an separate commit. Here is original post explanation from Richard : List: linux-netdev Subject: [PATCH 3/6]NET:AX25:ROSE Traps calls to rose_route_frame with a NULL ax25 callback From: Richard Stearn <richard () rns-stearn ! demon ! co ! uk> Date: 2016-07-16 9:43:59 Message-ID: 201607160943.u6G9hx4i014901 () ux4 ! g1sog Subject: [PATCH 3/6]NET:AX25:ROSE Traps calls to rose_route_frame with a NULL ax25 callback Traps calls to rose_route_frame with a NULL ax25 callback to prevent a kernel crash. Calling rose_route_frame with a NULL ax25 callback parameter indicates a locally generated frame. The existing code does not handle the NULL value and the kernel hard crashes in an interrupt, resulting in the system stopping processing. Signed-off-by: Richard Stearn<richard@rns-stearn.demon.co.uk> Le 11/04/2017 à 19:26, f6bvp a écrit : > Hi, > > I want to acknowledge here a set of very usefull ROSE patches provided > by richard Stearn. > > Since years, it has not been possible to set rose0 device down without > creating an endless loop of kernel waiting for rose to become free. > > Richard found that a number of dev_put(dev) were missing. > > Applying the following patch subset cured the issue and allowed a > clean rose module removal. > > The following patches are part of a larger series committed by Richard > but rejected by Dave Miller mostly for format reasons. > > I selected and checked the minimal changes necessary to cure the > refcount issue. > > See : > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=146873255413533&w=2 > > Richard does not want to jump in again. > > So I would appreciate if someone could help us by confirming that this > patch is extremely convenient. > > Then someone could submit this subset to linux-hams and linux-netdev > referees. > > 73 de Bernard, f6bvp > > ---------------------------------------- > > > diff -ruN a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c > --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.205800053 +0200 > +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.290052819 +0200 > @@ -688,8 +688,10 @@ > rose->source_call = user->call; > ax25_uid_put(user); > } else { > - if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) > + if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) { > + dev_put(dev); > return -EACCES; > + } > rose->source_call = *source; > } > > @@ -710,6 +712,7 @@ > rose_insert_socket(sk); > > sock_reset_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED); > + dev_put(dev); > > return 0; > } > diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c > --- a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.206800010 +0200 > +++ b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.291052777 +0200 > @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ > if ((dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { > if (rose_rx_call_request(skb, dev, > rose_loopback_neigh, lci_o) == 0) > kfree_skb(skb); > + dev_put(dev); > } else { > kfree_skb(skb); > } > diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_route.c b/net/rose/rose_route.c > --- a/net/rose/rose_route.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.207799967 +0200 > +++ b/net/rose/rose_route.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.290052819 +0200 > @@ -875,6 +875,11 @@ > src_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + > ROSE_CALL_REQ_SRC_ADDR_OFF); > dest_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + > ROSE_CALL_REQ_DEST_ADDR_OFF); > > + if (ax25 == NULL) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "rose_route_frame : called with ax25 > callback == NULL\n"); > + return res; > + } > + > spin_lock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock); > spin_lock_bh(&rose_route_list_lock); > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting Rose patch 2017-04-11 17:26 ` Interesting Rose patch f6bvp 2017-04-12 8:19 ` f6bvp @ 2017-04-12 20:43 ` Walter Harms 2017-04-13 13:19 ` f6bvp 2017-04-18 16:14 ` Fwd: " David Ranch 1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Walter Harms @ 2017-04-12 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Ranch, f6bvp, Basil Gunn Cc: C Schuman, linux-hams, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn > f6bvp <f6bvp@free.fr> hat am 11. April 2017 um 19:26 geschrieben: > > > Hi, > > I want to acknowledge here a set of very usefull ROSE patches provided > by richard Stearn. > > Since years, it has not been possible to set rose0 device down without > creating an endless loop of kernel waiting for rose to become free. > > Richard found that a number of dev_put(dev) were missing. > > Applying the following patch subset cured the issue and allowed a clean > rose module removal. > > The following patches are part of a larger series committed by Richard > but rejected by Dave Miller mostly for format reasons. > > I selected and checked the minimal changes necessary to cure the > refcount issue. > > See : > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=146873255413533&w=2 > > Richard does not want to jump in again. > > So I would appreciate if someone could help us by confirming that this > patch is extremely convenient. > > Then someone could submit this subset to linux-hams and linux-netdev > referees. > > 73 de Bernard, f6bvp > > ---------------------------------------- > > > diff -ruN a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c > --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.205800053 +0200 > +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.290052819 +0200 > @@ -688,8 +688,10 @@ > rose->source_call = user->call; > ax25_uid_put(user); > } else { > - if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) > + if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) { > + dev_put(dev); > return -EACCES; > + } > rose->source_call = *source; > } > > @@ -710,6 +712,7 @@ > rose_insert_socket(sk); > > sock_reset_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED); > + dev_put(dev); > > return 0; > } > diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c > --- a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.206800010 +0200 > +++ b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.291052777 +0200 > @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ > if ((dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { > if (rose_rx_call_request(skb, dev, > rose_loopback_neigh, lci_o) == 0) > kfree_skb(skb); > + dev_put(dev); > } else { > kfree_skb(skb); > } > diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_route.c b/net/rose/rose_route.c > --- a/net/rose/rose_route.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.207799967 +0200 > +++ b/net/rose/rose_route.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.290052819 +0200 > @@ -875,6 +875,11 @@ > src_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + > ROSE_CALL_REQ_SRC_ADDR_OFF); > dest_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + > ROSE_CALL_REQ_DEST_ADDR_OFF); > > + if (ax25 == NULL) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "rose_route_frame : called with ax25 > callback == NULL\n"); > + return res; > + } > + you can check this more early and return 0 directly. just my 2 cents, re, wh > spin_lock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock); > spin_lock_bh(&rose_route_list_lock); > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting Rose patch 2017-04-12 20:43 ` Walter Harms @ 2017-04-13 13:19 ` f6bvp [not found] ` <a4f993a0-b12a-f3e6-455c-16ea2da28737@trinnet.net> 2017-04-18 16:14 ` Fwd: " David Ranch 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: f6bvp @ 2017-04-13 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Ranch, Basil Gunn Cc: C Schuman, linux-hams, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn Hi, Unloading rose module issue due to unmatched dev_put() had also been previously reported here : http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=143389465602786&w=2 and here by f6bvp : http://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=148837252410913&w=4 Bernard >> Hi, >> >> I want to acknowledge here a set of very usefull ROSE patches provided >> by richard Stearn. >> >> Since years, it has not been possible to set rose0 device down without >> creating an endless loop of kernel waiting for rose to become free. >> >> Richard found that a number of dev_put(dev) were missing. >> >> Applying the following patch subset cured the issue and allowed a clean >> rose module removal. >> >> The following patches are part of a larger series committed by Richard >> but rejected by Dave Miller mostly for format reasons. >> >> I selected and checked the minimal changes necessary to cure the >> refcount issue. >> >> See : >> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=146873255413533&w=2 >> >> Richard does not want to jump in again. >> >> So I would appreciate if someone could help us by confirming that this >> patch is extremely convenient. >> >> Then someone could submit this subset to linux-hams and linux-netdev >> referees. >> >> 73 de Bernard, f6bvp >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> >> diff -ruN a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c >> --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.205800053 +0200 >> +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.290052819 +0200 >> @@ -688,8 +688,10 @@ >> rose->source_call = user->call; >> ax25_uid_put(user); >> } else { >> - if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) >> + if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) { >> + dev_put(dev); >> return -EACCES; >> + } >> rose->source_call = *source; >> } >> >> @@ -710,6 +712,7 @@ >> rose_insert_socket(sk); >> >> sock_reset_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED); >> + dev_put(dev); >> >> return 0; >> } >> diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c >> --- a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.206800010 +0200 >> +++ b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.291052777 +0200 >> @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ >> if ((dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { >> if (rose_rx_call_request(skb, dev, >> rose_loopback_neigh, lci_o) == 0) >> kfree_skb(skb); >> + dev_put(dev); >> } else { >> kfree_skb(skb); >> } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <a4f993a0-b12a-f3e6-455c-16ea2da28737@trinnet.net>]
* Re: Interesting Rose patch [not found] ` <a4f993a0-b12a-f3e6-455c-16ea2da28737@trinnet.net> @ 2017-04-17 16:15 ` f6bvp 2017-04-17 16:27 ` f6bvp ` (2 more replies) 2017-06-28 12:24 ` Interesting Rose patch f6bvp 1 sibling, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: f6bvp @ 2017-04-17 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Ranch, Basil Gunn Cc: C Schuman, linux-hams, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn Hello David, Thank you for offering to test the rose issue and validate Richard's patch. You should first download and install fpac package using the related script number 3 from here : http://f6bvp.org/configuration6_RPi.html The script will install the whole FPAC package, although we will only use fpad application to reproduce the bug. Rose install using fpad application is straightforward. In order to let fpad node application run, you may use the following three configuration files samples you do not need to edit. I assume you have already set up at least one ax.25 interface, and have /etc/ax25/axports, for rose runs upon AX.25 network . All three files must be copied into /etc/ax25/ directory. Here is /etc/ax25/fpac.conf sample : # # This file is /usr/local/etc/ax25/fpac.conf (/etc/ax25/fpac.conf) # # node configuration # L2call = F6BVP-6 L3call = F6BVP-7 Trcall = F6BVP-15 DNIC = 2080 Address = 175525 #Coverage = 175202 175302 175402 InetPort = 10095 InetAddr = 44.168.19.22 Password = 123456789 City = Paris State = 75017 Country = France locator = JN18DV UserPort = * DefPort = axudp # # Other commands # Command VERsions = /usr/local/sbin/versions End #for "sysops" # Sysop SYSop = /usr/local/sbin/fpacshell end # # Other applications # # TEST Application #F6BVP-14 = /usr/local/sbin/call_tcp f6bvp.org 6300 End Second file is /etc/ax25/fpac.routes : # # FPAC ROSE route configuration file # # This file is in /usr/local/etc/ax25/fpac.routes # # Routes to adjacent nodes # # DNIC specify a default DNIC for the following addresses # # Address is 1 to 6 digits, using hierarchy # Routes DNIC = 0 2080 = F6BVP-11 2080 = F6BVP-9 2220 = F6BVP-9 3100 = F6BVP-9 3100 = F6BVP-9 3620 = F6BVP-9 7100 = F6BVP-9 # Routes to adjacent nodes full ROSE address # DNIC + 6 digits DNIC = 2080 175502 = F6BVP-11 175520 = F6BVP-9 End Third file is /etc/ax25/fpac.nodes # FPAC ROSE route configuration file # # This file is in /usr/local/etc/ax25/fpac.nodes # # List of adjacent nodes # Node = F6BVP-9 Path = F6BVP-9 DNIC = 2080 Address = 175520 Port = axudp NoWp = 0 End Node = F6BVP-11 Path = F6BVP-11 DNIC = 2080 Address = 175502 Port = axudp NoWp = 0 End Again, for this test purpose, you don't need to edit those files, as you are not willing to get an actual working node switch. After installing ax25 and fpac package using the script and putting above three files in /etc/ax25, then you are ready to perform the test. Simply start fpad issuing the command /usr/local/sbin/fpad If you get the following message : "problem with axports file." it would mean you did not start AX.25 before running fpad. If you need, I could send you a script modified from K4GBB to set up AX.25 devices. Otherwise fpad will display this message : Configuring routes : Route 2080175520 -> F6BVP-9 (axudp) Route 2080175502 -> F6BVP-11 (axudp) Route 7100000000 -> F6BVP-9 (axudp) Route 3620000000 -> F6BVP-9 (axudp) Route 3100000000 -> F6BVP-9 (axudp) Route 3100000000 -> F6BVP-9 (axudp) Route 2220000000 -> F6BVP-9 (axudp) Route 2080000000 -> F6BVP-9 (axudp) Route 2080000000 -> F6BVP-11 (axudp) FPAD : ROSE address 2080175525 bound to device rose0 And after a while, you will get the following : FPAD cannot open WP service Closing opened sockets Removing ROSE nodes FPAD aborting This is because we did not start correctly the full FPAC suite of applications. It does not matter. Now we have loaded rose module, created a ROSE device and initiated a rose socket. We want to close down rose0 device the same way we would do it for NetRom device using command ifconfig rose0 down. This command removes rose0 device. However rose module cannot be removed by rmmod rose command. Instead we enter into a kernel loop waiting for rose module to be free. I hope this is clear enough to let you reproduce the bug. Then after applying the patch, you will see that removing rose is fine. Bernard Le 13/04/2017 à 16:57, David Ranch a écrit : > > Hey Bernard, > > So how would you like to proceed here? I can apply you patch to a > kernel and see if my machine remains stable. If you have a test plan > you can share to reproduce issues, I can go through that as well. > Beyond that, I don't actively use ROSE today. After that, I imagine we > should get the patches signed off and submitted upstream. > > --David > KI6ZHD > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting Rose patch 2017-04-17 16:15 ` f6bvp @ 2017-04-17 16:27 ` f6bvp 2017-04-19 14:11 ` f6bvp [not found] ` <4188542e-1404-badc-cc8d-8bb07cb6d55a@free.fr> 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: f6bvp @ 2017-04-17 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Ranch, Basil Gunn Cc: C Schuman, linux-hams, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn Hello David, I missed something important that needs some explanation. Port names in fpac.nodes sample file I provided are "axudp" Obviously those Port names should be edited according to your /etc/ax25/axports file ! And the following comment line should be removed in that file : # FPAC ROSE route configuration file # # This file is in /usr/local/etc/ax25/fpac.nodes # # List of adjacent nodes # Bernard Le 17/04/2017 à 18:15, f6bvp a écrit : > Hello David, > > > > Le 13/04/2017 à 16:57, David Ranch a écrit : >> >> Hey Bernard, >> >> So how would you like to proceed here? I can apply you patch to a >> kernel and see if my machine remains stable. If you have a test plan >> you can share to reproduce issues, I can go through that as well. >> Beyond that, I don't actively use ROSE today. After that, I imagine >> we should get the patches signed off and submitted upstream. >> >> --David >> KI6ZHD >> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting Rose patch 2017-04-17 16:15 ` f6bvp 2017-04-17 16:27 ` f6bvp @ 2017-04-19 14:11 ` f6bvp [not found] ` <4188542e-1404-badc-cc8d-8bb07cb6d55a@free.fr> 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: f6bvp @ 2017-04-19 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: C Schuman Cc: David Ranch, Basil Gunn, linux-hams, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn Charley K4GBB was kind enough to check "unregister netdevice" bug on two of his hosts runing ROSE-FPAC nodes . Here I forward his two reports. Bernard The same condition exists on this host. root@linuxlab4:~# uname -a Linux linuxlab4 4.1.21+ #872 Wed Apr 6 17:27:13 BST 2016 armv6l GNU/Linux root@linuxlab4:~# lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Debian Description: Debian GNU/Linux 7.11 (wheezy) Release: 7.11 Codename: wheezy On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Charles Schuman <k4gbb1@gmail.com <mailto:k4gbb1@gmail.com>> wrote: Stopping ax25 and verifying ax25 sockets closed and rose module still loaded the rmmod rose cmd causes a endless loop of the following message. root@linuxlab5:~# rmmod rose Message from syslogd@linuxlab5 at Apr 18 14:37:20 ... kernel:[4229400.605324] unregister_netdevice: waiting for rose0 to become free. Usage count = 33 _root@linuxlab5:~# uname -a_ Linux linuxlab5 4.1.19+ #858 Tue Mar 15 15:52:03 GMT 2016 armv6l GNU/Linux _root@linuxlab5:~# lsb_release -a_ No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Debian Description: Debian GNU/Linux 7.11 (wheezy) Release: 7.11 Codename: wheezy On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, f6bvp <f6bvp@free.fr <mailto:f6bvp@free.fr>> wrote: Hello Charley, Glad to hear from you and I hope you are fine. I you want, you may confirm that shutting down rose0 (ifconfig rose0 down) and removing rose module (rmmod rose) can freeze the kernel into an infinite loop waiting for rose to be free. 73 de Bernard, f6bvp Le 18/04/2017 à 04:24, Charles Schuman a écrit : > Bernard, > I have a FPAC Node set up as a Test Bed on m RPi-B1. > What would you like me to test. > > <<Charley>> > k4gbb ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <4188542e-1404-badc-cc8d-8bb07cb6d55a@free.fr>]
[parent not found: <969c06f8-572b-db66-3ebb-1e02205461fa@trinnet.net>]
[parent not found: <b20c7da4-66f5-0f6b-ac21-41ab075b9d69@free.fr>]
[parent not found: <21e6f319-f0cf-276e-a374-d44c9bd8827e@free.fr>]
* Re: [ROSE] rose dereferenced pointer kernel panic [not found] ` <21e6f319-f0cf-276e-a374-d44c9bd8827e@free.fr> @ 2019-01-02 11:52 ` Dmitry Vyukov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Vyukov @ 2019-01-02 11:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bernard Pidoux Cc: David Ranch, ralf, David Miller, linux-hams, netdev, LKML, syzkaller On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:12 AM Bernard Pidoux <f6bvp@free.fr> wrote: > > Hi David, > > In my previous message I should have reported the following patch rather than the one I reported. > > The reason is that the bug is better explained here : > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=154478673812818&w=2 > > and I hope the new proposed patch is more convenient. > > > Bernard > > > Le 01/01/2019 à 23:39, Bernard Pidoux a écrit : > > Hi David, > > As you already know I am still looking for the simplest way to configure a kernel rose failure situation when rose_route_frame is called with a NULL pointer. > > Could you explain with full details how to have "TCP/IP over AX.25 fully configured" ? > > More specifically how can we configure rose device without NOARP ? This is not the case when performing Dmitry Vyukov : > > # ip link set dev rose0 address 11:22:33:44:55 > # ip link set dev rose0 up > > 73 de Bernard, f6bvp > > > Le 08/12/2018 à 17:23, David Ranch a écrit : > > Hello Bernard, Everyone, > > Yes, I've seen a similar behavior with another program I have here that broadcasts on all live TCP/IP interfaces when it loads. That all depends if you have TCP/IP over AX.25 fully configured on your machine. If you do, this cp,,amd should key up your radio to send out an ARP: > > ping -b -c 1 <broadcast IP on your ROSE or AX.25 interface> > -- > d710: fm KI6ZHD to QST ctl UI pid=CC(IP) len 84 > IP: len 84 44.4.10.39->44.4.10.127 ihl 20 ttl 64 DF prot ICMP > ICMP: type Echo Request id 50814 seq 1 > P�.\ > �~. > ................ !"#$%&'()*+,-./01234567 > -- > > Btw, I've been aware of this ROSE panic issue for some time and I'm pretty sure I forwarded those details on to you but that was many years ago. Another way to reproduce a ROSE panic is, if I remember correctly, you remove the backing AX.25 interface's connection (say killing kisssattach for ax0) on a ROSE interface that has an IP, that will also panic the kernel every time. > > --David > KI6ZHD +mailing lists Hi Bernard, I've provided a bit more information on what I did here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller/v-4B3zoBC-4/MVgYoeSQCgAJ I really did not do anything fancy. FWIW I had to do the following locally just to prevent rose from crashing my machine all the time. I don't know if it's the right fix or not, I just used this as stop-gap. diff --git a/net/rose/rose_route.c b/net/rose/rose_route.c index 77e9f85a2c92..218308a3c02c 100644 --- a/net/rose/rose_route.c +++ b/net/rose/rose_route.c @@ -874,6 +874,8 @@ int rose_route_frame(struct sk_buff *skb, ax25_cb *ax25) skb->data[ROSE_CALL_REQ_ADDR_LEN_OFF] != ROSE_CALL_REQ_ADDR_LEN_VAL)) return res; + if (ax25 == NULL) + return res; src_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + ROSE_CALL_REQ_SRC_ADDR_OFF); dest_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + ROSE_CALL_REQ_DEST_ADDR_OFF); rose_xmit calls rose_route_frame with ax25==NULL, then rose_route_frame uses ax25 without any checks. ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting Rose patch [not found] ` <a4f993a0-b12a-f3e6-455c-16ea2da28737@trinnet.net> 2017-04-17 16:15 ` f6bvp @ 2017-06-28 12:24 ` f6bvp 2017-06-28 15:20 ` David Ranch 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: f6bvp @ 2017-06-28 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Ranch, Basil Gunn Cc: C Schuman, linux-hams, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn Hello David, It has been a long time since I sent the following message. Did you read it ? http://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=149495926809205&w=4 As you can read I performed the test of Richard's Walter's ROSE patch modification and the conclusion is positive. I do approve and support this important ROSE patch. You could now proceed and make it introduced into ROSE code. Bernard Le 13/04/2017 à 16:57, David Ranch a écrit : > Le 18/04/2017 à 18:14, David Ranch a écrit : > > Hey Bernard, > > Do you want to consider testing with Walter's modification to > Richard's patch mentioned on April 12th (below)? > > --David > > > --David > KI6ZHD ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting Rose patch 2017-06-28 12:24 ` Interesting Rose patch f6bvp @ 2017-06-28 15:20 ` David Ranch 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: David Ranch @ 2017-06-28 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: f6bvp, Basil Gunn Cc: C Schuman, linux-hams, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn Hello Bernard, Great to hear the patch is working. Getting the commit applied is mostly a matter of formatting an email in specific ways, sending them to the right people, and getting approvals. Ralf: Do you have any concerns on this patch in what it's specifically doing, etc? --David KI6ZHD On 06/28/2017 05:24 AM, f6bvp wrote: > Hello David, > > It has been a long time since I sent the following message. > Did you read it ? > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=149495926809205&w=4 > > As you can read I performed the test of Richard's Walter's ROSE patch > modification and the conclusion is positive. > I do approve and support this important ROSE patch. > > You could now proceed and make it introduced into ROSE code. > > Bernard > > > Le 13/04/2017 à 16:57, David Ranch a écrit : > Le 18/04/2017 à 18:14, David Ranch a écrit : >> Hey Bernard, >> >> Do you want to consider testing with Walter's modification to >> Richard's patch mentioned on April 12th (below)? >> >> --David >> >> >> --David >> KI6ZHD > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Fwd: Re: Interesting Rose patch 2017-04-12 20:43 ` Walter Harms 2017-04-13 13:19 ` f6bvp @ 2017-04-18 16:14 ` David Ranch 2017-04-18 18:12 ` f6bvp 2017-05-16 18:27 ` Fwd: " f6bvp 1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: David Ranch @ 2017-04-18 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-hams Cc: Bernard, f6bvp, C Schuman, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn, Basil Gunn Hey Bernard, Do you want to consider testing with Walter's modification to Richard's patch mentioned on April 12th (below)? --David -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Interesting Rose patch Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 22:43:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Walter Harms <wharms@bfs.de> Organization: Bundesamt f. Strahlenschutz To: David Ranch <dranch@trinnet.net>, f6bvp <f6bvp@free.fr>, Basil Gunn <basil@pacabunga.com> CC: C Schuman <k4gbb1@embarqmail.com>, linux-hams@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Bächle DL5RB <ralf@linux-mips.org>, Richard Stearn <richard@rns-stearn.co.uk> > f6bvp <f6bvp@free.fr> hat am 11. April 2017 um 19:26 geschrieben: > > > Hi, > > I want to acknowledge here a set of very usefull ROSE patches provided > by richard Stearn. > > Since years, it has not been possible to set rose0 device down without > creating an endless loop of kernel waiting for rose to become free. > > Richard found that a number of dev_put(dev) were missing. > > Applying the following patch subset cured the issue and allowed a clean > rose module removal. > > The following patches are part of a larger series committed by Richard > but rejected by Dave Miller mostly for format reasons. > > I selected and checked the minimal changes necessary to cure the > refcount issue. > > See : > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-hams&m=146873255413533&w=2 > > Richard does not want to jump in again. > > So I would appreciate if someone could help us by confirming that this > patch is extremely convenient. > > Then someone could submit this subset to linux-hams and linux-netdev > referees. > > 73 de Bernard, f6bvp > > ---------------------------------------- > > > diff -ruN a/net/rose/af_rose.c b/net/rose/af_rose.c > --- a/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.205800053 +0200 > +++ b/net/rose/af_rose.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.290052819 +0200 > @@ -688,8 +688,10 @@ > rose->source_call = user->call; > ax25_uid_put(user); > } else { > - if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) > + if (ax25_uid_policy && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE)) { > + dev_put(dev); > return -EACCES; > + } > rose->source_call = *source; > } > > @@ -710,6 +712,7 @@ > rose_insert_socket(sk); > > sock_reset_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED); > + dev_put(dev); > > return 0; > } > diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c > --- a/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.206800010 +0200 > +++ b/net/rose/rose_loopback.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.291052777 +0200 > @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ > if ((dev = rose_dev_get(dest)) != NULL) { > if (rose_rx_call_request(skb, dev, > rose_loopback_neigh, lci_o) == 0) > kfree_skb(skb); > + dev_put(dev); > } else { > kfree_skb(skb); > } > diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_route.c b/net/rose/rose_route.c > --- a/net/rose/rose_route.c 2017-04-03 19:02:14.207799967 +0200 > +++ b/net/rose/rose_route.c 2017-04-03 12:18:02.290052819 +0200 > @@ -875,6 +875,11 @@ > src_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + > ROSE_CALL_REQ_SRC_ADDR_OFF); > dest_addr = (rose_address *)(skb->data + > ROSE_CALL_REQ_DEST_ADDR_OFF); > > + if (ax25 == NULL) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "rose_route_frame : called with ax25 > callback == NULL\n"); > + return res; > + } > + you can check this more early and return 0 directly. just my 2 cents, re, wh > spin_lock_bh(&rose_neigh_list_lock); > spin_lock_bh(&rose_route_list_lock); > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting Rose patch 2017-04-18 16:14 ` Fwd: " David Ranch @ 2017-04-18 18:12 ` f6bvp 2017-05-16 18:27 ` Fwd: " f6bvp 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: f6bvp @ 2017-04-18 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Ranch, linux-hams Cc: C Schuman, Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn, Basil Gunn Hello David, Walter's suggested to modify Richard's rose patch 3/6. List: linux-netdev Subject: [PATCH 3/6]NET:AX25:ROSE Traps calls to rose_route_frame with a NULL ax25 callback From: Richard Stearn <richard () rns-stearn ! demon ! co ! uk> Date: 2016-07-16 9:43:59 This patch intends to remove a kernel panic cause due to ax25 parameter that is fatal when, locally generated NULL argument, in calling ax25cmp() function later in the code. However, this is a separate issue from "rose waiting to be free" and as such it should committed separately from the other. I agree that NULL ax25 could be checked more early at the beginning of rose_route() and I will consider moving it at the top of rose_route(). Then I will report the result. Bernard Le 18/04/2017 à 18:14, David Ranch a écrit : > > Hey Bernard, > > Do you want to consider testing with Walter's modification to > Richard's patch mentioned on April 12th (below)? > > --David > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: Re: Interesting Rose patch 2017-04-18 16:14 ` Fwd: " David Ranch 2017-04-18 18:12 ` f6bvp @ 2017-05-16 18:27 ` f6bvp 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: f6bvp @ 2017-05-16 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Ranch, linux-hams Cc: Ralf Bächle DL5RB, Richard Stearn, Basil Gunn Hi David, I applied the following Walter's modification to Richard's patch with success to both kernels 4.10 and 4.11. diff -ruN a/net/rose/rose_route.c a/net/rose/rose_route.c --- a/net/rose/rose_route.c 2016-04-04 00:26:26.000000000 +0200 +++ b/net/rose/rose_route.c 2017-02-26 23:46:10.468772036 +0100 @@ -867,6 +866,11 @@ int res = 0; char buf[11]; + if (ax25 == NULL) { + printk(KERN_ERR "rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL\n"); + return res; + } + if (skb->len < ROSE_MIN_LEN) return res; Sending connect request ROSE/AX.25 frames through an IP device without routing gateway originated a NULL ax25 condition that have been extensively explained in previous messages. I used netconsole on local and remote machines to capture kernel message after applying the patch. Here are /var/log/dmesg content [ 0.000000] Linux version 4.10.0 (root@f6bvp-6) (gcc version 4.9.2 (GCC) ) #1 SMP Mon Feb 20 15:44:42 CET 2017 [ 0.000000] Command line: BOOT_IMAGE=4.10.0 root=UUID=f3cbe7d7-7b6d-4618-bc72-a044a0b20958 splash quiet noiswmd resume=UUID=cd3d43f3-1c51-46a1-8d40-6c693d50b0d4 vga=788 -------------- [ 17.718171] NET: Registered protocol family 17 [ 103.173995] console [netcon0] enabled [ 103.174040] netconsole: network logging started [ 103.180494] netconsole: network logging has already stopped [ 103.192495] printk: continuation disabled due to ext consoles, expect more fragments in /dev/kmsg [ 103.192527] console [netcon_ext0] enabled [ 103.192534] netpoll: netconsole: local port 6665 [ 103.192543] netpoll: netconsole: local IPv4 address 192.168.0.119 [ 103.192550] netpoll: netconsole: interface 'enp0s9' [ 103.192558] netpoll: netconsole: remote port 6666 [ 103.192565] netpoll: netconsole: remote IPv4 address 192.168.0.115 [ 103.192573] netpoll: netconsole: remote ethernet address b8:27:eb:9b:43:e5 [ 103.192610] netconsole: netconsole: network logging started [ 103.270048] NET: Registered protocol family 3 [ 103.273377] mkiss: AX.25 Multikiss, Hans Albas PE1AYX [ 103.274250] mkiss: ax0: crc mode is auto. [ 103.275388] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): ax0: link becomes ready [ 103.361158] NET: Registered protocol family 11 [ 106.376322] mkiss: ax0: Trying crc-smack [ 106.376876] mkiss: ax0: Trying crc-flexnet [ 237.193538] IPv4: martian source 255.255.255.255 from 44.168.19.17, on dev enp0s9 [ 237.195491] ll header: 00000000: ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 0c 42 91 13 ac 08 00 ........B..... [ 263.136213] rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL [ 263.138758] rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL [ 263.149080] rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL [ 297.195431] IPv4: martian source 255.255.255.255 from 44.168.19.17, on dev enp0s9 [ 297.195512] ll header: 00000000: ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 0c 42 91 13 ac 08 00 ........B..... [ 324.576251] rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL [ 324.576380] rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL [ 324.576827] rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL [ 357.205313] IPv4: martian source 255.255.255.255 from 44.168.19.17, on dev enp0s9 [ 357.205391] ll header: 00000000: ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 0c 42 91 13 ac 08 00 ........B..... [ 398.304379] rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL [ 398.304520] rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL [ 398.304874] rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL [ 417.211572] IPv4: martian source 255.255.255.255 from 44.168.19.17, on dev enp0s9 [ 417.213627] ll header: 00000000: ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 0c 42 91 13 ac 08 00 ........B..... --------------- This is remote console capture with nc : 3,822,623584407,-;rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL 3,823,623586390,-;rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL 3,824,623588128,-;rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL 4,825,673724925,-;IPv4: martian source 255.255.255.255 from 44.168.19.17, on dev enp0s9 4,826,673726146,-;ll header: 00000000: ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 0c 42 91 13 ac 08 00 ........B..... 4,827,684896180,-;IPv4: martian source 44.168.19.20 from 44.168.19.17, on dev enp0s9 4,828,684897494,-;ll header: 00000000: ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 0c 42 91 13 ac 08 06 ........B..... 4,829,685890394,-;IPv4: martian source 44.168.19.20 from 44.168.19.17, on dev enp0s9 4,830,685891811,-;ll header: 00000000: ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 0c 42 91 13 ac 08 06 ........B..... 4,831,686890384,-;IPv4: martian source 44.168.19.20 from 44.168.19.17, on dev enp0s9 4,832,686891872,-;ll header: 00000000: ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 0c 42 91 13 ac 08 06 ........B..... 3,833,697313405,-;rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL 3,834,697315376,-;rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL 3,835,697318136,-;rose_route_frame : called with ax25 callback == NULL Above listing show that the patch is doing the job identifying the NULL condition and avoiding a kernel panic. Bernard Le 18/04/2017 à 18:14, David Ranch a écrit : > > Hey Bernard, > > Do you want to consider testing with Walter's modification to > Richard's patch mentioned on April 12th (below)? > > --David > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-01-02 11:52 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-01-14 20:18 [PATCH 1/1] ax25: Fix segfault after sock connection timeout Basil Gunn 2017-01-16 19:40 ` David Miller [not found] ` <1a4ee351-031c-932e-0332-779ce33e90e6@trinnet.net> [not found] ` <20170201080217.4d8443bb@brox.localnet> [not found] ` <3e3f25fc-fc60-c01b-1139-245284200656@trinnet.net> [not found] ` <39dad041-f224-735e-adb7-e0fb42771858@free.fr> [not found] ` <25ee9245-3595-85f7-93b8-a18d6066a2e3@free.fr> [not found] ` <07a1454e-99a2-8cec-d50a-006257687c2e@free.fr> [not found] ` <12e0547b-cb2c-1ca0-abc0-d849d8a62139@trinnet.net> [not found] ` <598de982-d655-22bd-c5ba-2d9114f9fb7c@free.fr> 2017-02-23 17:56 ` [BUG] AX.25 sockets not destroyed Ralf Baechle DL5RB [not found] ` <3d0e170e-3995-84d0-007e-3d2065296237@free.fr> [not found] ` <9f9dba49-c2a5-41e8-9382-9154802e7fbf@trinnet.net> [not found] ` <20170327163641.0f992e2d@brox.localnet> 2017-04-11 17:26 ` Interesting Rose patch f6bvp 2017-04-12 8:19 ` f6bvp 2017-04-12 20:43 ` Walter Harms 2017-04-13 13:19 ` f6bvp [not found] ` <a4f993a0-b12a-f3e6-455c-16ea2da28737@trinnet.net> 2017-04-17 16:15 ` f6bvp 2017-04-17 16:27 ` f6bvp 2017-04-19 14:11 ` f6bvp [not found] ` <4188542e-1404-badc-cc8d-8bb07cb6d55a@free.fr> [not found] ` <969c06f8-572b-db66-3ebb-1e02205461fa@trinnet.net> [not found] ` <b20c7da4-66f5-0f6b-ac21-41ab075b9d69@free.fr> [not found] ` <21e6f319-f0cf-276e-a374-d44c9bd8827e@free.fr> 2019-01-02 11:52 ` [ROSE] rose dereferenced pointer kernel panic Dmitry Vyukov 2017-06-28 12:24 ` Interesting Rose patch f6bvp 2017-06-28 15:20 ` David Ranch 2017-04-18 16:14 ` Fwd: " David Ranch 2017-04-18 18:12 ` f6bvp 2017-05-16 18:27 ` Fwd: " f6bvp
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.