Hi, On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 8:00 AM Nikita Zhandarovich <n.zhandarovich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > I was curious whether a smaller change would suffice since I might be > too green to see the full picture here. > > In all honesty I am failing to see how exactly it happens that cb->secen > == 1 and cb->secen_override == 0 (which is exactly what occurs during > this error repro) at the start of mac802154_set_header_security(). > Since there is a check in mac802154_set_header_security() > > if (!params.enabled && cb->secen_override && cb->secen) > > maybe we take off 'cb->secen_override' part of the condition? That way > we catch the case when security is supposedly enabled without parameters > being available (not enabled) and return with error. Or is this approach > too lazy? I need to see the full patch for this. In my opinion there are two patches here: 1. fix uninit values 2. return an error with some mismatched security parameters. (I think this is where your approach comes in place) The 1. case is what syzbot is complaining about and in my opinion easy to fix at [0] to init some more default values of "struct dgram_sock" [1]. Then 2. can be fixed afterwards. - Alex [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/net/ieee802154/socket.c#n474 [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/net/ieee802154/socket.c#n435
