On January 11, 2024 11:37:19 AM PST, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:00:21 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: >> > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, >> > > please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. >> > >> > Oops, nope, this isn't in Linus's tree yet, just linux-next, and it >> > causes build breakages, so I can't take it now. >> >> Oh, what build breakages? I had tested this a few different ways >> originally. Is it something specific to -stable? > >I was hoping to put a WARN_ON(overflow) here into net-next for a month >or so to have syzbot shake out any possible bugs. Winter holidays got >in the way. Would you mind waiting until -rc4 before pushing it to >stable? Is it fixing any real bug or just a false-positive warning? The int -> u16 change is fixing a false positive, but there's an outside chance this could uncover other places where nla_len() is getting into trouble. But I didn't see build failures from it. What did I miss? -Kees -- Kees Cook
