From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D7EB480357 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 12:58:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789390731; cv=none; b=tUIoXNUMFIZGJKCfEg93ELtOaaDj/oVuKm9Aii6DDoH4FfQXv5pTVwvm+bUjWoswSgjATU9suy3DAH0DlST1pbbroclexfdWp2qquCiyZitva/ZqsjSVM/LfpErBWp02LoO50mENoDRusZmJTEikFdpGZhT5aFITDhFZ1lD9fvg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789390731; c=relaxed/simple; bh=445p2A0D2g3Vppp+qHEzCE7f3/L7kFo57xUqlBZ5wVk=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=s6Uj9Ud83RBFmAf9JUzHTNINWn9SYRzWDz+Zh23dzqwTM1x45ZMWxWQ7SPZM0IlS0P3seDhniyQ2Q6xu5ioN4KV7Gu2mycJcYc0uNGp/sC7n2VaguhhjOXHADmrpiUyJ8KxKpaGmaYE8M1GGQ4b3+GIEc7boXJpVbCQSIQ8gXlU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=NNwzYSxC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="NNwzYSxC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=Q6PpcdRGuERSPwSa7AMpx3pOzfqSziGYLUMOgaRiNG8=; t=1789390729; x=1790600329; b=NNwzYSxC7I3C+zr33UDkz89nJXlpAWaLAvcS8gZBIrL7vlq bPP5c53w+QQLs1Y7LVWO7uCaYMWbUrEwE1qGKOcEpCmaaE52jujILu7sw/RY5HIxNAf0SDFCv4cVZ ItXMkxLKpf+iFaxAqDXemzs2JJD0hnJ6a4yyUyEbJ2P98k/LEo9Z+Lu1UCd7sdeJPiQuSRPjD9i1R XtQuXaT2oQXsH4MZxD8f6njLXpVwX6U0KfBik0tP7/7JvwA1FfBFkRdBIjN6QIOLdl+fVeHeHVjP2 ttE2EqVZabOBbfjY5/vmlxckQNnhFZh7Ts49hpHsut3IAub4Y2vvOpu7Lqd0FJ5A==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__ECDSA_SECP256R1_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1x66Gj-0000000FSuq-2Js0; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 14:58:45 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless 1/1] wifi: mac80211: fix fragment length overflow From: Johannes Berg To: Zhiling Zou , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Cc: vega@nebusec.ai Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 14:58:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20260829_073623_742822_6E8076F2) References: (sfid-20260829_073623_742822_6E8076F2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-1.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Sat, 2026-08-29 at 13:36 +0800, Zhiling Zou wrote: > The fragment reassembly cache tracks the amount of data in continuation > fragments in a u16. An oversized fragmented frame can therefore wrap the > value before it is passed to pskb_expand_head(), leaving the destination > skb too small for the queued fragments and triggering skb_over_panic(). >=20 > Use an unsigned int, matching skb->len, so the accumulator is not > truncated at 16 bits. >=20 > Fixes: 3a11ce08c45b ("mac80211: add fragment cache to sta_info") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org I'm not sure this is reachable in real hardware - there are PHY limits on frame sizes too... it might be though with VHT or so? > +++ b/net/mac80211/sta_info.h > @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct ieee80211_fragment_entry { > struct sk_buff_head skb_list; > unsigned long first_frag_time; > u16 seq; > - u16 extra_len; > + unsigned int extra_len; > u16 last_frag; You could reorder the fields to not add holes, especially if you're fixing a patch that as trying to make this smaller ... johannes