[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45C57695.7000707@vc.cvut.cz>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:00:53 -0800
From: Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@...cvut.cz>
To: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NCPFS and brittle connections
Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Ok... how about this baby instead. I've replaced the stack allocated
> request structure by one allocated with kmalloc() and reference counted
> using an atomic_t. I couldn't see anything else that was associated to
> the process, so I believe this should suffice.
>
> (This is just a RFC. Once I get an ok from you I'll put together a more
> proper patch mail)
>
> - req.tx_type = *(u_int16_t*)server->packet;
> -
> - result = ncp_add_request(server, &req);
> + struct ncp_request_reply *req;
> +
> + req = ncp_alloc_req();
> + if (!req)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + req->reply_buf = reply_buf;
> + req->datalen = max_reply_size;
> + req->tx_iov[1].iov_base = server->packet;
> + req->tx_iov[1].iov_len = size;
> + req->tx_iovlen = 1;
> + req->tx_totallen = size;
> + req->tx_type = *(u_int16_t*)server->packet;
Problem is with these pointers - reply_buf & server->packet. Now code
will just read packet from server->packet, and write result to
reply_buf, most probably transmiting some random data to network, and
overwriting innocent memory on receiption... I believe that you need to
make copies of server->packet/size for transmission, and some simillar
solution for receive as well. As both request & response can be up to
~66000 bytes.
Petr
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists