[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14865.1467108030@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:00:30 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/29] rxrpc: Avoid using stack memory in SG lists in rxkad
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > I'm using the per-skb state for my own purposes and might be looking at it
> > elsewhere at the same time.
>
> AFAICS this cannot happen for secure_packet/verify_packet. In both
> cases we have exclusive ownership of the skb.
In code I'm busy working on the patch I'm decrypting may be on the receive
queue several times. rxrpc has a jumbo packet concept whereby a packet may be
constructed in such a way that it's actually several packets stitched together
- the idea being that a router can split it up (not that any actually do that
I know of) - but each segment of the jumbo packet may be enqueued as a
separate entity.
> But it's your code so feel free to send your own patch.
I will apply something very similar to my tree. Andy's patch does not apply
as-is due to conflicts.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
