Hello,
As Jan pointed out, it seems that the third patch of my patchset is not
formatted properly. Moreover, I got my own email address wrong. Please
disregard the whole patchset as I need to investigate the issue. I'll
repost the complete patchset when it will be resolved.
I'm sorry if it cau
On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 20:04 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sasha Levin
> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:10:19 +0200
>
> > Currently when sending data over datagram, the send function will attempt to
> > allocate any size passed on from the userspace.
> >
> > We should make sure that this size is
From: Sasha Levin
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:10:19 +0200
> Currently when sending data over datagram, the send function will attempt to
> allocate any size passed on from the userspace.
>
> We should make sure that this size is checked and limited. The maximum size
> of an IP packet seemed like t
Hello,
(This is my first time submitting patches. If I fail to apply to
some rules in here, please let me know)
After reading the 6lowpan code, I found a few issues. This patchset
fixes them. This patchset should apply cleanly against the current
net-next. It contains only bug fixes, I'll send la
Hi Alan,
On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 12:24 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:10:19 +0200
> Sasha Levin wrote:
> > + if (hlen + tlen + size > IEEE802154_MTU) {
> > + err = -EMSGSIZE;
> > + goto out;
>
> What stops an overflow at this point. We'll then pass a small va
Currently when sending data over datagram, the send function will attempt to
allocate any size passed on from the userspace.
We should make sure that this size is checked and limited. The maximum size
of an IP packet seemed like the safest limit here.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
Change in v2
