Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 01 Aug 2023 17:11:49 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        syzbot+f527b971b4bdc8e79f9e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, brauner@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
        dsahern@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <64c975155d6f3_1d4d6f2941e@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <1501753.1690920713@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <64c93109c084e_1c5e3529452@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
 <1420063.1690904933@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <1501753.1690920713@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] udp: Fix __ip_append_data()'s handling of
 MSG_SPLICE_PAGES
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

David Howells wrote:
> Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > __ip6_append_data probably needs the same.
> 
> Now that's interesting.  __ip6_append_data() has a check for this and returns
> -EINVAL in this case:
> 
> 		copy = datalen - transhdrlen - fraggap - pagedlen;
> 		if (copy < 0) {
> 			err = -EINVAL;
> 			goto error;
> 		}
> 
> but should I bypass that check for MSG_SPLICE_PAGES?  It hits the check when
> it should be able to get past it.  The code seems to go back to prehistoric
> times, so I'm not sure why it's there.

Argh, saved by inconsistency between the two stacks.

I don't immediately understand the race that caused this code to move,
in commit 232cd35d0804 ("ipv6: fix out of bound writes in __ip6_append_data()").
Maybe a race with a mtu update?

Technically there is no Fixes tag to apply, so this would not be a fix
for net.

If we want equivalent behavior, a patch removing this branch is probably
best sent to net-next, in a way that works from the start.