On 16.03.2022 08:35:58, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>
>
> On 16.03.22 02:51, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 21:37:48 +0100 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> > > Syzbot created an environment that lead to a state machine status that
> > > can not be reached with a compliant CAN ID address configuration.
> > > The provided address information consisted of CAN ID 0x6000001 and 0xC28001
> > > which both boil down to 11 bit CAN IDs 0x001 in sending and receiving.
> > >
> > > Sanitize the SFF/EFF CAN ID values before performing the address checks.
> > >
> > > Fixes: e057dd3fc20f ("can: add ISO 15765-2:2016 transport protocol")
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+2339c27f5c66c652843e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > CC Marc, please make sure you CC maintainers.
>
> Oh, that would have been better! I'm maintaining the CAN network layer stuff
> together with Marc and there was no relevant stuff in can-next to be pulled
> in the next days. So I sent it directly to hit the merge window and had all
> of us in the reply to the syzbot report.
>
> Will CC Marc next time when posting to netdev only!
>
> Maybe I treated this patch more urgent than it needed to be handled
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Should this go into net/master with stable on Cc or to net-next?
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
