On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:12 PM Cong Wang wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 3:42 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 01/23/2019 03:25 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:41 AM 'Eric Dumazet' via syzkaller
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> syzbot found that ax25 routes where not
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 3:42 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/23/2019 03:25 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:41 AM 'Eric Dumazet' via syzkaller
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> syzbot found that ax25 routes where not properly protected
> >> against concurrent use [1].
> >>
> >> In this
On 01/23/2019 03:25 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:41 AM 'Eric Dumazet' via syzkaller
> wrote:
>>
>> syzbot found that ax25 routes where not properly protected
>> against concurrent use [1].
>>
>> In this particular report the bug happened while
>> copying ax25->digipeat.
>>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:41 AM 'Eric Dumazet' via syzkaller
wrote:
>
> syzbot found that ax25 routes where not properly protected
> against concurrent use [1].
>
> In this particular report the bug happened while
> copying ax25->digipeat.
>
> Fix this problem by making sure we call ax25_get_rout
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:40:59 -0800
> syzbot found that ax25 routes where not properly protected
> against concurrent use [1].
>
> In this particular report the bug happened while
> copying ax25->digipeat.
>
> Fix this problem by making sure we call ax25_get_route()
> while
syzbot found that ax25 routes where not properly protected
against concurrent use [1].
In this particular report the bug happened while
copying ax25->digipeat.
Fix this problem by making sure we call ax25_get_route()
while ax25_route_lock is held, so that no modification
could happen while using
