Em Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 12:35:10PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > Em Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:38:54AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov escreveu: > > Hello, > > > > I've got the following report while running syzkaller fuzzer on > > 86292b33d4b79ee03e2f43ea0381ef85f077c760: > > > > > > It seems that dccp_create_openreq_child needs to unlock the sock if > > dccp_feat_activate_values fails. > > Yeah, can you please use the patch below, that mimics the error paths in > sk_clone_new(), from where I think even the comment about it being a raw Argh, s/sk_clone_new()/sk_clone_lock()/g - Arnaldo > copy came, but the bh_unlock_sock() didn't? > > - Arnaldo > > diff --git a/net/dccp/minisocks.c b/net/dccp/minisocks.c > index 53eddf99e4f6..d20d948a98ed 100644 > --- a/net/dccp/minisocks.c > +++ b/net/dccp/minisocks.c > @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ struct sock *dccp_create_openreq_child(const struct sock *sk, > /* It is still raw copy of parent, so invalidate > * destructor and make plain sk_free() */ > newsk->sk_destruct = NULL; > + bh_unlock_sock(newsk); > sk_free(newsk); > return NULL; > } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
