On Sunday, 6 June 2021 17:48:25 CEST Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> And the explanation you give seems to be bogus. Or am I missing
> handling in batadv_hardif_enable_interface ?
I told syzbot to try https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=Patch&x=100b083fd00000
and the response ( https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=CrashLog&x=1456f0ffd00000
indicating that if_outgoing->soft_iface was NULL, and there was a memory allocation
fault injection immediately before this result.
Since if_outgoing->soft_iface becomes non-NULL if batadv_hardif_enable_interface()
succeeds, this situation indicates that batadv_hardif_enable_interface() failure
caused forw_packet->if_outgoing->soft_iface to remain NULL.
Ok, then I misread the commit message. I've understood is as "soft_iface"
allocation failed (which doesn't happen here anymore) in
batadv_hardif_enable_interface. But you meant that was that hard_iface->soft_iface is
set to the correct value, the OGM transmission is started up by
but soft_iface is changed back immediately in batadv_hardif_enable_interface because