On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:41:02PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> syzkaller reported crashes in bpf map creation or map update [1]
>
> Problem is that nr_node_ids is a signed integer,
> NUMA_NO_NODE is also an integer, so it is very tempting
> to declare numa_node as a signed
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 22:41:02 -0700
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> syzkaller reported crashes in bpf map creation or map update [1]
>
> Problem is that nr_node_ids is a signed integer,
> NUMA_NO_NODE is also an integer, so it is very tempting
> to declare numa_node as a signed i
On 9/4/17 10:41 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Call Trace:
__do_kmalloc_node mm/slab.c:3688 [inline]
__kmalloc_node+0x33/0x70 mm/slab.c:3696
kmalloc_node include/linux/slab.h:535 [inline]
alloc_htab_elem+0x2a8/0x480 kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:740
htab_map_update_elem+0x740/0xb80 kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:820
On 09/05/2017 07:41 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
From: Eric Dumazet
syzkaller reported crashes in bpf map creation or map update [1]
Problem is that nr_node_ids is a signed integer,
NUMA_NO_NODE is also an integer, so it is very tempting
to declare numa_node as a signed integer.
This means the typ
From: Eric Dumazet
syzkaller reported crashes in bpf map creation or map update [1]
Problem is that nr_node_ids is a signed integer,
NUMA_NO_NODE is also an integer, so it is very tempting
to declare numa_node as a signed integer.
This means the typical test to validate a user provided value :
