Re: [PATCH net] netrom: do some basic forms of validation on incoming frames

On 11/4/2026 15:50, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2026 at 08:25:19AM +1000, Hugh Blemings wrote:
>> On 11/4/2026 08:11, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>>> From: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 14:54:48 -0700
>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 14:30:42 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 07:24:36 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 08:32:35PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>>>>> Or for simplicity we could also be testing against skb_headlen()
>>>>>>> since we don't expect any legit non-linear frames here? Dunno.
>>>>>> 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?  :)
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> My thinking is to delete hamradio, nfc, atm, caif.. [more to come]
>>>>> Create GH repos which provide them as OOT modules.
>>>>> Hopefully we can convince any existing users to switch to that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing stopping me is the concern that this is just the softest
>>>>> target and the LLMs will find something else to focus on which we can't
>>>>> delete. I suspect any PCIe driver can be flooded with "aren't you
>>>>> trusting the HW to provide valid responses here?" bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> But hey, let's try. I'll post a patch nuking all of hamradio later
>>>>> today.
>>>> Well, either we "expunge" this code to OOT repos, or we mark it
>>>> as broken and tell everyone that we don't take security fixes
>>>> for anything that depends on BROKEN. I'd personally rather expunge.
>>> +1 for "expunge" to prevent LLM-based patch flood.
>>>
>>> IIRC, we did that recently for one driver only used by OpenWRT ?
>>>
>>>
>> If the main concern here is ongoing maintenance of these Ham Radio related
>> protocols/drivers, can we pause for a moment on anything as dramatic as
>> removing from the tree entirely ?
> Sure, but:
>
>> There is a good cohort of capable kernel folks that either are or were ham
>> radio operators who I believe, upon realising that things have got to this
>> point, will be happy to redouble efforts to ensure this code maintained and
>> tested to a satisfactory standard.
> We need this code to be maintained, because as is being shown, there are
> reported problems with it that will affect these devices/networks that
> you all are using.  So all we need is a maintainer for this to be able
> to take reports that we get and fix things up as needed.  I know you
> have that experience, want to come back to kernel development, we've
> missed you :)

That's most kind Greg, thank you, have missed all you cool kids too :)

More seriously though - I'd be up for doing it, but I think there may be 
others better placed than I who haven't yet realised we have this 
conundrum. I'm nudging a few folks offline on this front.

I've also kicked off a thread in linux-hams to discuss some of the 
broader questions raised about staying in tree, going to out of tree or 
looking at userspace solutions instead.

We'll try get a cohesive picture back over next few days.

Cheers,
Hugh

-- 
I am slowly moving to [email protected] as my main email address.
If you're using [email protected] please update your address book accordingly.
Thank you :)