On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:53 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyk...@google.com> > Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:36:37 +0200 > >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo >> <a...@kernel.org> wrote: >>> Em Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 12:35:10PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: >>>> Em Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:38:54AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov escreveu: >>>> > Hello, >>>> > >>>> > I've got the following report while running syzkaller fuzzer on >>>> > 86292b33d4b79ee03e2f43ea0381ef85f077c760: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > It seems that dccp_create_openreq_child needs to unlock the sock if >>>> > dccp_feat_activate_values fails. >>>> >>>> Yeah, can you please use the patch below, that mimics the error paths in >>>> sk_clone_new(), from where I think even the comment about it being a raw >>> >>> Argh, s/sk_clone_new()/sk_clone_lock()/g >> >> Hi Arnaldo, >> >> Could you send the patch? >> >> We haven't seen these reports since we applied it. > > It isn't necessary in the current tree. > > Arnaldo created a helper sk_free_unlock_clone() which handles this situation > properly, and calls it from dccp_create_openreq_child().
OK, great, thanks!
