On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 01:51:07PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 12:36:46PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 02:15:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> vhost_vsock_alloc_skb() returns NULL for packets advertising a length
> larger than VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE in the packet header. However,
> this is only checked once the SKB has been allocated and, if the length
> in the packet header is zero, the SKB may not be freed immediately.
>
> Hoist the size check before the SKB allocation so that an iovec larger
> than VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE + the header size is rejected
> outright. The subsequent check on the length field in the header can
> then simply check that the allocated SKB is indeed large enough to hold
> the packet.
LGTM, but should we consider this as stable material adding a Fixes tag?
Yup, absolutely. I put it first so that it can be backported easily but,
for some reason, I thought networking didn't CC stable. I have no idea
_why_ I thought that, so I'll add it (and a Fixes: line) for v2!
yeah, this was the case till last year IIRC, but we always used Fixes
tag, also if we didn't cc stable.
That seems to be:
Fixes: 71dc9ec9ac7d ("virtio/vsock: replace virtio_vsock_pkt with sk_buff")
from what I can tell.
I think so!
Thanks,
Stefano
