netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Virtual ethernet device driver

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: <46963391.1080609@openvz.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:58:41 +0400
From:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Virtual ethernet device driver

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>> No, to get unique names the sequence has to be:
>>>
>>> dev_alloc_name
>>> register_netdevice
>>> dev_alloc_name
>>> register_netdevice
>>>
>>> But you have:
>>>
>>> dev_alloc_name
>>> dev_alloc_name (<- might allocate same name as first call)
>>> register_netdevice
>>> register_netdevice
>>
>> Oops :) You're right. That's the problem. I was carried away by
>> testing the "peer" options and checking for names rather than
>> "veth%d" to work...
>>
>> By the way, that will create some problems. You see, your patches
>> imply that the register_netdevice() will be called at the very end
>> of the ->newlink callback. Otherwise, the error path of any code
>> following the registering will have to call unregister_netdevice()
>> which will BUG() in free_netdev() in rtnl_newlink() - the device
>> state will be neither UNINITIALIZED nor UNREGISTERED :(
> 
> 
> Thats true. I think you could do:
> 
> - use name of the supplied device for the second device
> - register second device
> - allocate new name for first device
> - register first device
> 

Not 100% like this (since the first name is expected to be associated
with the device with the first address), but reallocating the name for
the first device sounds like a good idea.

David, which way would be more preferable - to fix booth issues pointed
by Patric and send the v.4 patch, or to wait for this patch to be committed
and then send two incremental fixes?

Pavel
-
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