[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070301143727.4ba00d04@freekitty>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:37:27 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"bugme-daemon@...nel-bugs.osdl.org"
<bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org>, loveminix@...oo.com.cn,
khc@...waw.pl
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8107] New: dev->header_cache_update has a
random value
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:34:17 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:33:05 -0800
> bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org wrote:
>
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8107
> >
> > Summary: dev->header_cache_update has a random value
> > Kernel Version: 2.6.20
> > Status: NEW
> > Severity: high
> > Owner: jgarzik@...ox.com
> > Submitter: loveminix@...oo.com.cn
> >
> >
> > Distribution: Kernel 2.6.20
> >
> > Problem Description:
> >
> > In struct net_device, there are two fields: hard_header_cache and
> > header_cache_update, both of which are function pointers. The third field,
> > hard_header, is also a function pointer. Whenever hard_header points to a valid
> > function, both hard_header_cache and header_cache_update should have a known
> > value, either NULL or a valid function pointer. However, in
> > drivers/net/wan/hdlc_cisco.c, in function static int cisco_ioctl(struct
> > net_device *dev, struct ifreq *ifr), where dev->hard_header is assigned a valid
> > function, and dev->hard_header_cache is assigned a known value (NULL), dev-
> > >header_cache_update is not set to a known value:
> >
> > dev->hard_start_xmit = hdlc->xmit;
> > dev->hard_header = cisco_hard_header;
> > dev->hard_header_cache = NULL;
> > dev->type = ARPHRD_CISCO;
> > dev->flags = IFF_POINTOPOINT | IFF_NOARP;
> > dev->addr_len = 0;
> >
> > This may cause serious problems when dev->header_cache_update is invoked,
> > because it has an uninitialized value.
> >
> > Steps to reproduce:
> >
> > I found this suspicious spot with the help of a code-checking tool.
> >
>
> Like this?
Not necessary, since any network device must already allocated by
alloc_netdev() and it initializes the whole struct to 0 (NULL).
--
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists