netdev - Re: [PATCH] veth: Cleanly handle a missing peer

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]

Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:48:07 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] veth: Cleanly handle a missing peer_tb argument on creation.

Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org> writes:

>> +	}
>>  
>> -		tbp = peer_tb;
>> -	} else
>> -		tbp = tb;
>
> The intention of this part was to get the same parameters for
> peer as for the first device if no "peer" argument was specified
> for ip utility. Does it still work?

I know it is problematic because we try to assign the same name
to both network devices, if we assign a name to the primary
network device.  That can't work.

Beyond that I had some really weird crashes while testing this
piece of code, especially when I did not specify a peer parameter.

So it was just easier to avoid the problem with this patch then
to completely root cause it.

I think the easiest semantic is to not have any peer parameters
if they were not specified, then to try and to figure out which
subset of parameters to copy.  If I hadn't been getting weird
kernel crashes I would not have cared.

Eric
-
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