netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device.

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: <481FFBFE.4020900@openvz.org>
Date:	Tue, 06 May 2008 10:34:38 +0400
From:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	pcnet32@...izon.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][ATM]: Do not free already unregistered net device.

David Miller wrote:
> From: Don Fry <pcnet32@...izon.net>
> Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 09:44:40 -0700
> 
>> I do not understand why this change was accepted.  All of the network
>> drivers I just looked at in 2.6.25 do unregister_netdev() followed
>> sometime soon by free_netdev().  Is there something different about ATM
>> devices?  I did not look at all the drivers.
> 
> Indeed, this change does look bogus.
> 
> Pavel, please take a look, unregister_netdev() indeed does not free
> the netdevice, and something (usually the caller) needs to do it.

Indeed :( My bad, I've overlooked the fact, that this device doesn't
have a ->destructor callback set (which most of the others set to the
free_netdev), so the free_netdev is to be called manually.

> I think I should revert your change.

Agree. Sorry, for the confusion.
--
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