netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8107] New: dev->header_cache

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070301.173310.74748069.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:33:10 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.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

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:37:27 -0800

> Not necessary, since any network device must already allocated by
> alloc_netdev() and it initializes the whole struct to 0 (NULL).

It is in this case, unfortunately, HDLC protocols can be registers
several times before the device is brought up and protocol changes
become disallowed.

So you can attach one, then a second one, and the second one has
to explicitly initialize the pointers potentially set by the
first one.

On the other hand, you could say that it's the protocol
->detach() method's responsibility to NULL out these things
instead of leaving references to function pointers of
a module that's about the be unloaded.

-
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