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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:25:45 -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: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> 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. > > 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. 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists