From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference in skb_dequeue
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:46:35 +0100
Message-ID: <1291387595.2897.350.camel@edumazet-laptop>
References: <0fe401cb92e7$85ba2260$912e6720$@si>
	 <1291381791.2897.250.camel@edumazet-laptop>
	 <aa43945b38cee751a8231084866b074d@192.168.253.23>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gvs@zemos.net,
	Rami Rosen <ramirose@gmail.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Andrej Ota <andrej@ota.si>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <aa43945b38cee751a8231084866b074d@192.168.253.23>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Le vendredi 03 d=C3=A9cembre 2010 =C3=A0 15:37 +0100, Andrej Ota a =C3=A9=
crit :
> >> Patch that works for me is below. Now I only hope I haven't
> >> (re)introduced a memory leak...
>=20
> > Problem comes from commit 55c95e738da85 (fix return value of
> > __pppoe_xmit() method)
> >=20
> > I am not sure patch is OK
>=20
>=20
> Me neither. That's why I wrote "works for me". All I dare say is that=
 it
> works better than current code and is probably no worse than it was b=
efore
> above mentioned commit. Apart from that, there is no point in having =
return
> value for __pppoe_xmit if return value isn't needed.
>=20
> Easiest way of triggering this BUG is by terminating PPPoE on the ser=
ver
> side, which then hits "if (!dev) { goto abort; }". This in turn calls
> "kfree_skb(skb); return 0;" which returns to pppoe_rcv_core which the=
n
> goto-s to "abort_put" which again calls "kfree_skb(skb)". Voila the b=
ug.
>=20
> I don't know how to trigger "if (skb_cow_head(skb, ..." to see if I h=
ave
> just caused another BUG. However, if I read file comments at the top,=
 I see
> a comment from 19/07/01 stating that I have to delete original skb if=
 code
> succeeds and never delete it on failure. About the skb copy mentioned=
 in
> the same comment, I don't know. 2001 was many commits ago.

Well, all I wanted to say was that _I_ was not sure, but probably other
network guys have a better diagnostic.

Rami, could you re-explain the rationale of your patch ?

Thanks