On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:15 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:53:24AM +0800, Qiujun Huang wrote: > > Do accounting for skb's real sk. > > In some case skb->sk != asoc->base.sk. > > This is a too simple description. Please elaborate how this can > happen in sctp_wfree. Especially considering the construct for > migrating the tx queue on sctp_sock_migrate(), as both sockets are > locked while moving the chunks around and the asoc itself is only > moved in between decrementing and incrementing the refcount: > > lock_sock_nested(newsk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); > sctp_for_each_tx_datachunk(assoc, sctp_clear_owner_w); > sctp_assoc_migrate(assoc, newsk); > sctp_for_each_tx_datachunk(assoc, sctp_set_owner_w); > ... Yeah, the description is too simple. I'll send v2. > > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+cea71eec5d6de256d54d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > I can't see a positive test result, though. If I didn't loose any > email, your last test with a patch similar to this one actually > failed. > I'm talking about syzbot test result at Message-ID: <000000000000e7736205a0e041f5@xxxxxxxxxx> I told with syzbot privately avoiding noise :p Thanks!
