similar to: [Bug 779] Netfilter on bridge interface containing a defective NIC

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779 --- Comment #7 from calebc2099 at yahoo.com 2013-07-14 02:02:26 CEST --- (In reply to comment #6) > I have tested this again, this time with different hardware. The bridge is > made up of an e1000 (eth1) and a pcnet32 (eth2) which DOES NOT SUPPORT > rx-checksum offloading. And again, everything worked perfectly and I saw no >

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779 --- Comment #6 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-13 02:45:27 CEST --- I have tested this again, this time with different hardware. The bridge is made up of an e1000 (eth1) and a pcnet32 (eth2) which DOES NOT SUPPORT rx-checksum offloading. And again, everything worked perfectly and I saw no corrupt packets or incorrect

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779 --- Comment #5 from calebc2099 at yahoo.com 2013-07-12 01:54:55 CEST --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Have you tried to replicate the problem with a defective NIC? Here is an > > example of how to replicate the problem: > > Well, that is difficult since I do not own defective nics. But again: if

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779 --- Comment #3 from calebc2099 at yahoo.com 2013-07-11 23:25:20 CEST --- (In reply to comment #1) > I am unable to replicate this issue on a 3.10 kernel. Perhaps the "defect in > the NIC" you describe is actually responsible for the corrupt packets you are > seeing? > > Have you tested this on a recent kernel? Have

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779 --- Comment #4 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-11 23:30:36 CEST --- (In reply to comment #3) > Have you tried to replicate the problem with a defective NIC? Here is an > example of how to replicate the problem: Well, that is difficult since I do not own defective nics. But again: if your NIC is defective,

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779 --- Comment #2 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-09 03:41:43 CEST --- Further note: I was testing using e1000 nics. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com --- Comment #1 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-09

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Phil Oester <netfilter

Hello all. I''ve upgraded my drives, and in doing so loaded FC8. Latest kernel-xen.x86_64 (2.6.21.7-5) and xen.x86_64 (3.1.2-5) available, using 2 Intel NICs with e1000 driver. All worked fine on FC5 with custom domU FC5 with pcifront and NIC drivers in kernel. Now, I''m unable to get the NICs to function inside my domU. The are visible in lspci, and ipconfig. DomU dmesg

This uses PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR and PTR_ERR in order to increase readability. Signed-off-by: Silviu-Mihai Popescu <silviupopescu1990 at gmail.com> --- net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_broute.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_broute.c b/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_broute.c index 40d8258..70f656c 100644 ---

An earlier variant of your patch was applied already, included below. You'll need to submit the newer parts relative to the current tree. diff-tree 7ad4d2f6901437ba4717a26d395a73ea362d25c6 (from b8282dcf0417bbc8a0786c129fdff9cc768f8f3c) Author: Jayachandran C <c.jayachandran@gmail.com> Date: Tue Apr 11 17:25:38 2006 -0700 [BRIDGE] ebtables: fix allocation in

From: "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1 at huawei.com> [ Upstream commit a7ed3465daa240bdf01a5420f64336fee879c09d ] When compiling with gcc 13 and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y, the following warning appears: In function ?fortify_memcpy_chk?, inlined from ?size_entry_mwt? at net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c:2118:2: ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:592:25: error: call to

From: "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1 at huawei.com> [ Upstream commit a7ed3465daa240bdf01a5420f64336fee879c09d ] When compiling with gcc 13 and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y, the following warning appears: In function ?fortify_memcpy_chk?, inlined from ?size_entry_mwt? at net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c:2118:2: ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:592:25: error: call to

From: "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1 at huawei.com> [ Upstream commit a7ed3465daa240bdf01a5420f64336fee879c09d ] When compiling with gcc 13 and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y, the following warning appears: In function ?fortify_memcpy_chk?, inlined from ?size_entry_mwt? at net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c:2118:2: ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:592:25: error: call to

From: "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1 at huawei.com> [ Upstream commit a7ed3465daa240bdf01a5420f64336fee879c09d ] When compiling with gcc 13 and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y, the following warning appears: In function ?fortify_memcpy_chk?, inlined from ?size_entry_mwt? at net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c:2118:2: ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:592:25: error: call to

From: "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1 at huawei.com> [ Upstream commit a7ed3465daa240bdf01a5420f64336fee879c09d ] When compiling with gcc 13 and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y, the following warning appears: In function ?fortify_memcpy_chk?, inlined from ?size_entry_mwt? at net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c:2118:2: ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:592:25: error: call to

From: "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1 at huawei.com> [ Upstream commit a7ed3465daa240bdf01a5420f64336fee879c09d ] When compiling with gcc 13 and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y, the following warning appears: In function ?fortify_memcpy_chk?, inlined from ?size_entry_mwt? at net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c:2118:2: ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:592:25: error: call to

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1673 Bug ID: 1673 Summary: bug egress hook virtio interface with VLAN Product: nftables Version: 1.0.x Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: kernel Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org

From: "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1 at huawei.com> When compiling with gcc 13 and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y, the following warning appears: In function ?fortify_memcpy_chk?, inlined from ?size_entry_mwt? at net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c:2118:2: ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:592:25: error: call to ?__read_overflow2_field? declared with attribute warning: detected read beyond

Hello I'm iCAROS7 and my syzkaller hit vmalloc-OOB in net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c:1168 I not sure about that and related bridge. But report for just-in-case. I attached C reproducer and syzkaller report. Thank you for your deication. >From iCAROS7. <Information of my syzkaller system> CPU: Intel i7-12700K OS: Kubuntu 22.04.1 LTS (amd64) Kernel: 5.18.19-051819-generic Syzkaller