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  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 09:25:45 -0600
From: (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,
	Patrick McHardy <>,,
	Stephen Hemminger <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] veth: Cleanly handle a missing peer_tb argument on creation.

Pavel Emelyanov <> writes:

> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Pavel Emelyanov <> 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.
> This can - as you can see I reallocate the name lower.

Hmm. I just see:
	if (tbp[IFLA_IFNAME])
		nla_strlcpy(ifname, tbp[IFLA_IFNAME], IFNAMSIZ);

Then lower I see:
	if (tb[IFLA_IFNAME])
		nla_strlcpy(dev->name, tb[IFLA_IFNAME], IFNAMSIZ);

If (tb == tbp) then dev->name == ifname
Unless I'm completely misreading that code.

>> Beyond that I had some really weird crashes while testing this
>> piece of code, especially when I did not specify a peer parameter.
> Can you please give me the exact command that caused an oops.
> I try simple ip link add type veth and everything is just fine.

It might have been 64bit specific. 

What I have in my history is:
./ip/ip link add veth23 type veth

I forget exactly how it failed but as I recall it wasn't as
nice as an oops.  My memory may be a bit foggy though.

If I haven't provided a bit enough clue I guess I can go back
and remove the patch and try to reproduce the failure again.

>> So it was just easier to avoid the problem with this patch then
>> to completely root cause it.
> Let me handle this problem. AFAIR this was one of wishes from 
> Patrick that we make two equal devices in case peer is not given, 
> not just the default peer.

Ok.  I have if we can track down the weird cases I have no problem
if we handle this.  I think it still might be simpler if just
copy tb onto peer_tb instead of using tbp.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists