Re: [PATCH net] netrom: do some basic forms of validation on incoming frames
jj <[email protected]> Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:12:16 -0300
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-hams,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is NOT an obsolete protocol..this is in use by amateur radio operators world-wide...we use it for RF comms usually, because what happens if the internet goes "down", we can still provide comms over slower RF links....(plus it's a fun mode)please PLEASE do not drop...and sorry for the noise... de John VE1JOT On 2026-04-10 07:28, Simon Horman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 07:24:36AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 08:32:35PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 20:03:28 +0100 Simon Horman wrote: >>>> I expect that checking skb->len isn't sufficient here >>>> and pskb_may_pull needs to be used to ensure that >>>> the data is also available in the linear section of the skb. >>> Or for simplicity we could also be testing against skb_headlen() >>> since we don't expect any legit non-linear frames here? Dunno. > Sure, that's find by me if it leads to simpler code than > using pskb_may_pull(). Else I'd lean towards pskb_may_pull() > as it is a more general approach that feels worth proliferating. > >> I'll be glad to change this either way, your call. Given that this is >> an obsolete protocol that seems to only be a target for drive-by fuzzers >> to attack, whatever the simplest thing to do to quiet them up I'll be >> glad to implement. >> >> Or can we just delete this stuff entirely? :) > Deleting sounds good to me. > But we likely need a deprecation process. > In which case fixing these bugs still makes sense for the short term. >