Re: [BUG,NETFILTER] nfqnl_mangle() not requesting enough space for bigger reinjected packet.

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Arnaud Ebalard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the latency.
>   

Same here :)
> I think I just found why the 2.6.24 *Debian* kernel undergo the same
> issue. Basically because 2.6.24.4 kernel are also affected. Debian
> maintainers do apply during the build the patch switching to the use of
> skb_copy_expand() instead of pskb_expand_head() (as part of 2.6.24.4
> patch) ;-) :
>
> $:/tmp/linux-2.6-2.6.24/debian/patches$ grep -R _expand .
> ./features/all/vserver/vs2.2.0-rc5.patch:@@ -2098,6 +2107,8 @@ int may_expand_vm(struct mm_struct *mm, 
> ./features/all/vserver/vs2.2.0-rc5.patch:       if (!may_expand_vm(mm, (new_len - old_len) >> PAGE_SHIFT)) {
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.3.patch: static inline int audit_expand(struct audit_buffer *ab, int extra)
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.3.patch:-    int ret = pskb_expand_head(skb, skb_headroom(skb), extra,
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.3.patch:+    int ret = pskb_expand_head(skb, 0, extra, ab->gfp_mask);
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.3.patch:             audit_log_lost("out of memory in audit_expand");
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.4.patch:@@ -1699,6 +1699,11 @@ mptsas_sas_expander_pg0(MPT_ADAPTER *ioc, struct mptsas_portinfo *port_info,
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.4.patch:-                    err = pskb_expand_head(e->skb, 0,
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.4.patch:+                    nskb = skb_copy_expand(e->skb, 0,
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.4.patch:-                    err = pskb_expand_head(e->skb, 0,
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.4.patch:+                    nskb = skb_copy_expand(e->skb, 0,
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.4.patch:-                    err = pskb_expand_head(e->skb, 0,
> ./bugfix/all/stable/2.6.24.4.patch:+                    nskb = skb_copy_expand(e->skb, 0,
>
>
> I do not know precisely the process but I added the Debian Kernel
> Team in Cc, so that they are aware of the issue, with a pointer to the
> beginning of the thread: 
>
> Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/92426>
>
> >From my understanding, I think that the Debian version of the 2.6.24 on
> which I initially made my tests on was ok (pre-2.6.24.4). Then, I
> updated it to a new 2.6.24-1 Debian version (so did Silviu), which
> introduced the bug (it is in fact 2.6.24.4-based).
>
> To sum it up, all post 2.6.24.4 kernels need the patch (2.6.24.4
> included). This includes all 2.6.25.

Thanks for the explanation. I'll send it to -stable after running some 
tests.