Hi Jason, On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 04:04:13PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > The signed-off-by is missing and the subject does not match the format > of any other wireguard commits.
Ah, I don't usually send kernel patches. Forgot to do format.signOff=true. > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote: > > This doesn't seem to be reachable normally, but while working on a patch > > "Normally" as in what? At all? Or? I committed this while working on my address/ifindex binding patch[1] (which I will also resend shortly), at the time I thought this fix makes sense in isolation but apparently not. [1]: https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2023-August/008148.html, > > for the address binding code I ended up triggering this leak and had to > > reboot to get rid of the leaking wg sockets. > > This commit message doesn't describe any rationale for this patch. Can > you describe the bug? It's been a while since I wrote this patch. Unfortunately you didn't respond to my initial mail in Aug, so some context has already been lost to time. I may have been under the mistaken impression that udp_sock_create can return <0 while leaving *sockp!=NULL, but as I recall it I did re-test with this patch and it fixed the bug, that I wish I remembered how to trigger now. Unsatisfying. --Daniel