commit 1837b2e2 upstream.

The current reserved_tailroom calculation fails to take hlen and tlen into
account.

skb:
[__hlen__|__data____________|__tlen___|__extra__]
^                                               ^
head                                            skb_end_offset

In this representation, hlen + data + tlen is the size passed to alloc_skb.
"extra" is the extra space made available in __alloc_skb because of
rounding up by kmalloc. We can reorder the representation like so:

[__hlen__|__data____________|__extra__|__tlen___]
^                                               ^
head                                            skb_end_offset

The maximum space available for ip headers and payload without
fragmentation is min(mtu, data + extra). Therefore,
reserved_tailroom
= data + extra + tlen - min(mtu, data + extra)
= skb_end_offset - hlen - min(mtu, skb_end_offset - hlen - tlen)
= skb_tailroom - min(mtu, skb_tailroom - tlen) ; after skb_reserve(hlen)

Compare the second line to the current expression:
reserved_tailroom = skb_end_offset - min(mtu, skb_end_offset)
and we can see that hlen and tlen are not taken into account.

The min() in the third line can be expanded into:
if mtu < skb_tailroom - tlen:
	reserved_tailroom = skb_tailroom - mtu
else:
	reserved_tailroom = tlen

Depending on hlen, tlen, mtu and the number of multicast address records,
the current code may output skbs that have less tailroom than
dev->needed_tailroom or it may output more skbs than needed because not all
space available is used.

Fixes: 4c672e4b ("ipv6: mld: fix add_grhead skb_over_panic for devs with large MTUs")
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@suse.com>
Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@canonical.com>