On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:48:26PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 22:56 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 20:25 +1000, Kris Shannon wrote: > > > I was eagerly awating the release of linux-2.6_2.6.32-48squeeze4 > > > because it would fix #701744 (fallout from XSA-39: Linux netback DoS > > > via malicious guest ring) > > > > > > > > > It turns out I should have read the bug report more closely. > > > > > > #701744 was only about the xen-netback side of things. > > > > > > > > > I haven't been able to find a debian bug about the REAL bug - the > > > xen-netfront gso overflow. > > > > > > > > > Upstream have patched this: > > > http://git.kernel.org/linus/9ecd1a75d977e2e8c48139c7d3efed183f898d94 > > > > > > "netfront: reduce gso_max_size to account for max TCP header" > > > > > > > > > Is this likely to go into a squeeze kernel? > > > > Maybe. Ian, is this going to be possible to backport? > > It looks fairly small and self contained, so I suspect so. Wei -- does > that sound right (the backport target is Debian Wheezy which is 2.6.32) >
Yes, you're right. It should be fairly easy to backport. Wei. > The other question is whether there will be any more updates to the > Squeeze kernel at all, aren't we into security fixes only mode for > Squeeze by now? > > Ian. > > > > The xen environment I'm running these squeeze VM's in is running on > > > CentOS dom0's and Redhat have closed the visible bugs I can find on > > > this as "Not a bug" :( > > > > Right, the over-64K skbs are very definitely a netfront bug and it is > > correct for dom0 to reject them from an unpatched guest. > > > > As a temporary workaround I think that turning off TSO on netfront would > > avoid the problem, but it will reduce network TX performance. > > > > Ben. > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
