From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752803AbbJLTuc (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:50:32 -0400 Received: from a23-79-238-175.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com ([23.79.238.175]:39822 "EHLO prod-mail-xrelay07.akamai.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751675AbbJLTub (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:50:31 -0400 Message-ID: <561C0F06.90202@akamai.com> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:50:30 -0400 From: Jason Baron User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, minipli@googlemail.com, normalperson@yhbt.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, davidel@xmailserver.org, dave@stgolabs.net, olivier@mauras.ch, pageexec@freemail.hu, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, joe@perches.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] net: unix: fix use-after-free References: <20151011.045557.2164838188213641141.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20151011.045557.2164838188213641141.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/11/2015 07:55 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Jason Baron > Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 00:15:59 -0400 > >> These patches are against mainline, I can re-base to net-next, please >> let me know. >> >> They have been tested against: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/13/195, >> which causes the use-after-free quite quickly and here: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/2/693. > Hi, > I'd like to understand how patches that don't even compile can be > "tested"? > > net/unix/af_unix.c: In function Ħunix_dgram_writable˘: > net/unix/af_unix.c:2480:3: error: Ħother_full˘ undeclared (first use in this function) > net/unix/af_unix.c:2480:3: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in > > Could you explain how that works, I'm having a hard time understanding > this? > Traveling this week, so responses a bit delayed. Yes, I screwed up the posting. I had some outstanding code in my local tree to make it compile, but I failed to refresh my patch series with this outstanding code before mailing it out. So what I tested/built was not quite what I mailed out. As soon as I noticed this issue in patch 3/3 I re-posted it here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=144440355808472&w=2 in an attempt to avoid this confusion. I'm happy to re-post the series or whatever makes things easiest for you. > Also please address Hannes's feedback, thanks. > I've replied directly to Hannes. Thanks, -Jason