[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <494A24EB.8020307@katalix.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:24:43 +0000
From: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
To: Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppp: fix segfaults introduced by netdev_priv changes
Wang Chen wrote:
> I have no comment on these changes, but
> there is a path that calls only ppp_destroy_interface() no
> ppp_shutdown_interface().
> it's:
> ppp_unregister_channel
> --->ppp_disconnect_channel()
> ---> ppp_destroy_interface()
Isn't ppp_shutdown_interface() always called first? If not, then we need
to unregister_netdev() before the free_netdev() call in
ppp_destroy_interface(). The original code didn't cover that case.
>> /*
>> @@ -2616,7 +2614,7 @@ ppp_connect_channel(struct channel *pch, int unit)
>> if (pch->file.hdrlen > ppp->file.hdrlen)
>> ppp->file.hdrlen = pch->file.hdrlen;
>> hdrlen = pch->file.hdrlen + 2; /* for protocol bytes */
>> - if (ppp->dev && hdrlen > ppp->dev->hard_header_len)
>> + if (hdrlen > ppp->dev->hard_header_len)
>> ppp->dev->hard_header_len = hdrlen;
>> list_add_tail(&pch->clist, &ppp->channels);
>> ++ppp->n_channels;
>
> I don't understand this change.
> Do you mean that in this place, ppp->dev will never be NULL?
After my change, yes. See the comment in the patch preamble.
--
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development
--
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