On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 07:03:59PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On Mon, May 22 2023, SeongJae Park wrote:
>
> > Hi Pratyush,
> >
> > On Mon, 22 May 2023 17:30:20 +0200 Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Commit 50749f2dd685 ("tcp/udp: Fix memleaks of sk and zerocopy skbs with
> >> TX timestamp.") added a call to skb_orphan_frags_rx() to fix leaks with
> >> zerocopy skbs. But it ended up adding a leak of its own. When
> >> skb_orphan_frags_rx() fails, the function just returns, leaking the skb
> >> it just cloned. Free it before returning.
> >>
> >> This bug was discovered and resolved using Coverity Static Analysis
> >> Security Testing (SAST) by Synopsys, Inc.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 50749f2dd685 ("tcp/udp: Fix memleaks of sk and zerocopy skbs with TX timestamp.")
> >
> > Seems the commit has merged in several stable kernels. Is the bug also
> > affecting those? If so, would it be better to Cc stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
> >
>
> It affects v5.4.243 at least, since that is where I first saw this. But
> I would expect it to affect other stable kernels it has been backported
> to as well. I thought using the Fixes tag pointing to the bad upstream
> commit would be enough for the stable maintainers' tooling/bots to pick
> this patch up.
>
> In either case, +Cc stable. Link to the patch this thread is talking
> about [0].
<formletter>
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree. Please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.
</formletter>
