On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:53:57AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > > 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? The build failure wasn't on 6.7.y, but on 6.1.y and 6.6.y, apply it there and you will see what happens (sorry, don't have the error handy at the moment...) I'll wait until someone actually submits this before taking it, I was thinking it would be an easy way to fix a false-positive error, but sadly, it's not on older kernels. thanks, greg k-h
