From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:27:11 -0300
> Hi,
>
> Em 07-03-2016 20:17, kbuild test robot escreveu:
>> Hi Marcelo,
>>
>> [auto build test WARNING on net/master]
>>
>> url:
>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Marcelo-Ricardo-Leitner/sctp-fix-copying-more-bytes-th
Hi,
Em 07-03-2016 20:17, kbuild test robot escreveu:
Hi Marcelo,
[auto build test WARNING on net/master]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Marcelo-Ricardo-Leitner/sctp-fix-copying-more-bytes-than-expected-in-sctp_add_bind_addr/20160308-052009
coccinelle warnings: (new ones pr
Hi Marcelo,
[auto build test WARNING on net/master]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Marcelo-Ricardo-Leitner/sctp-fix-copying-more-bytes-than-expected-in-sctp_add_bind_addr/20160308-052009
coccinelle warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> net/sctp/bind_addr.c:458:42-48: ERROR:
Dmitry reported that sctp_add_bind_addr may read more bytes than
expected in case the parameter is a IPv4 addr supplied by the user
through calls such as sctp_bindx_add(), because it always copies
sizeof(union sctp_addr) while the buffer may be just a struct
sockaddr_in, which is smaller.
This pat
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 17:00:08 -0300
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:56:08PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> I kept the patch applied.
>
> Then Dave, please consider applying this patch.
Please submit the patch properly, as a fresh mailing list posting, and
integrating
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:56:08PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> I kept the patch applied.
Then Dave, please consider applying this patch.
Thanks.
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:45:20PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >> Yes, it i
I kept the patch applied.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:45:20PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> Yes, it is. I never saw this bug again. Forgot to update this thread. Sorry.
>
> Cool, thanks. The patch isn't applied yet, so either some o
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:45:20PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Yes, it is. I never saw this bug again. Forgot to update this thread. Sorry.
Cool, thanks. The patch isn't applied yet, so either some other patch
fixed it and this patch not necessary anymore or you kept the patch
applied. Please c
Yes, it is. I never saw this bug again. Forgot to update this thread. Sorry.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:28:48PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
>> wrote:
>> > Great. Dmitry, p
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:28:48PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> wrote:
> > Great. Dmitry, please give this a run. Local tests looked good but who
> > knows what syzkaller may find.
>
> Now running with this patch.
Hi Dmitry, do you reme
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
wrote:
> Great. Dmitry, please give this a run. Local tests looked good but who
> knows what syzkaller may find.
Now running with this patch.
> Thanks
>
> --8<--
>
> Dmitry reported that sctp_add_bind_addr may read more bytes than
> expect
Great. Dmitry, please give this a run. Local tests looked good but who
knows what syzkaller may find.
Thanks
--8<--
Dmitry reported that sctp_add_bind_addr may read more bytes than
expected in case the parameter is a IPv4 addr supplied by the user
through calls such as sctp_bindx_add(), because
12 matches
Mail list logo
