On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 02:05:11PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 29.11.2024 13:59:28, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > > On 29.11.2024 13:55:56, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 12:48:23PM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > > > > Since 'j1939_session_skb_queue()' do an extra 'skb_get()' for each > > > > new skb, I assume that the same should be done for an initial one > > > > in 'j1939_session_new()' just to avoid refcount underflow. > > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+d4e8dc385d9258220c31@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d4e8dc385d9258220c31 > > > > Fixes: 9d71dd0c7009 ("can: add support of SAE J1939 protocol") > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Tested-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Acked-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Can you re-phrase the commit message. The "assume" is not appropriate :) > > What about: > > Since j1939_session_skb_queue() does an extra skb_get() for each new > skb, do the same for the initial one in j1939_session_new() to avoid > refcount underflow. Sounds good. Thx! -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
