On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 07:53:28PM +0000, Loktionov, Aleksandr wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 7:05 PM > > To: Loktionov, Aleksandr <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; Nguyen, Anthony L > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Wieczerzycka, > > Katarzyna <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ice: add missing reset of the mac header > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 06:05:18AM +0100, Aleksandr Loktionov wrote: > > > From: Katarzyna Wieczerzycka <[email protected]> > > > > > > By default skb->mac_header is not set, so reset prevents access to > > an > > > invalid pointer. > > > > > > Call skb_reset_mac_header() before accessing the mac header from > > skb. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Katarzyna Wieczerzycka > > > <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Loktionov <[email protected]> > > > > Hi Katarzyna and Aleksandr, > > > > I am curious: > > > > Is this a bug? If so then it should probably have a fixes tag and a > > bit more of a description around how this can happen. > > > > If it is not a bug, then is this defensive? And if so, is it really > > necessary? > > > > ... > > > Good day, Simon > > I'm upstreaming Katarzyna's fix. > > From my point of view, it's not just defensive code, but real bug even on > latest kernel because the gap is partially closed by packet_parse_headers(), > but not completely. > Sorry the patch header is malformed, I definitely need to add > Fixes: f9f83202b726 ("ice: Allow all LLDP packets from PF to Tx")
Hi Aleksandr, I can see you have been busy. I agree adding a Fixes tag makes sense. If you could also expand the patch description that would be well appreciated (at least by me). > But not sure whether to send to net, because on modern kernels I have no real > call traces only theoretical conclusion. That is a line call in my opinion. If you include a Fixes tag, which seems sensible, then the chances are the patch will end up being backported to stable. And if the patch is in net-next it might not have hit Linus's tree before that happens. Which doesn't seem ideal. So I think it would be more sensible to target the patch at net to avoid that problem. But that's just my feeling. Either way, please consider adding a note regarding this. So it will be more obvious.
