On (04/01/18 12:51), Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
[..]
> > IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > Reported-by: syzbot+3f28bd18291266ec826b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > It will help syzbot understand when the bug is fixed. See footer for
> > details.
> > If you forward the report, please keep this part and the footer.
> >
> > llcp: nfc_llcp_send_ui_frame: Could not allocate PDU
> > llcp: nfc_llcp_send_ui_frame: Could not allocate PDU
> > llcp: nfc_llcp_send_ui_frame: Could not allocate PDU
> > llcp: nfc_llcp_send_ui_frame: Could not allocate PDU
Yes, this thing
do {
remote_miu = sock->remote_miu > LLCP_MAX_MIU ?
local->remote_miu : sock->remote_miu;
frag_len = min_t(size_t, remote_miu, remaining_len);
pr_debug("Fragment %zd bytes remaining %zd",
frag_len, remaining_len);
pdu = nfc_alloc_send_skb(sock->dev, &sock->sk, MSG_DONTWAIT,
frag_len + LLCP_HEADER_SIZE, &err);
if (pdu == NULL) {
pr_err("Could not allocate PDU\n");
continue;
^^^^^^^^
}
is basically
do {
pr_err("Could not allocate PDU\n");
} while (1)
Can cause problems sometimes. But this loop is a bit worrisome
even without the printk() call.
>From printk() side, we only can do rate limiting here. Would be
great if nfc maintainers could take a look and tweak the loop
maybe.
---
diff --git a/net/nfc/llcp_core.c b/net/nfc/llcp_core.c
index ef4026a23e80..a309a27581da 100644
--- a/net/nfc/llcp_core.c
+++ b/net/nfc/llcp_core.c
@@ -1386,7 +1386,7 @@ static void nfc_llcp_recv_agf(struct nfc_llcp_local *local, struct sk_buff *skb)
new_skb = nfc_alloc_recv_skb(pdu_len, GFP_KERNEL);
if (new_skb == NULL) {
- pr_err("Could not allocate PDU\n");
+ pr_err_ratelimited("Could not allocate PDU\n");
return;
}
