On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 21:16:08 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote: > Christian has reported buggy usage of skb_put() in tag_ksz.c, which is > only triggerable in real life using his not-yet-published patches for > IEEE 1588 timestamping on Micrel KSZ switches. > > The concrete problem there is that the driver can end up calling > skb_put() and exceed the end of the skb data area, because even though > it had reallocated the frame once before, it hadn't reallocated it large > enough. Christian explained it in more detail here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201014161719.30289-1-cegg...@arri.de/ > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201016200226.23994-1-cegg...@arri.de/ > > But actually there's a bigger problem, which is that some taggers which > get more rarely tested tend to do some shenanigans which are uncaught > for the longest time, and in the meanwhile, their code gets copy-pasted > into other taggers, creating a mess. For example, the tail tagging > driver for Marvell 88E6060 currently reallocates _every_single_frame_ on > TX. Is that an obvious indication that nobody is using it? Sure. Is it a > good model to follow when developing a new tail tagging driver? No. > > DSA has all the information it needs in order to simplify the job of a > tagger on TX. It knows whether it's a normal or a tail tagger, and what > is the protocol overhead it incurs. So this series performs the > reallocation centrally.
Applied, thank you!
