[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090105133228.GP496@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:32:28 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: andi@...stfloor.org, johannes@...solutions.net,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linville@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix up truesize after pskb_expand_head() in wireless stack
> At a minimum you need to add a skb->sk == NULL warn-on and abort path
> here, otherwise we will corrupt socket accounting and just explode
> somewhere else. Adding this patch as-is will just introduce a new
I ran the patch for a few days now and nothing exploded, no messages.
I can add a skb->sk check and see if it triggers.
> There are cases where the Tx path of the wireless loops back packets
> back to the Rx path, and in such cases we certainly could see sockets
> attached to the SKB.
>
> And Johannes is right,
He keeps talking about cases like monitoring sockets that don't
apply, which makes me somewhat suspicious of his analysis.
> absolutely cannot modify ->truesize blindly. You can't change the
> truesize value if a socket is attached.
But pskb_expand_head modifies the size so obviously
truesize needs to change too. So you're saying pskb_expand_head()
is illegal when there might be a socket attached? Somehow
I suspect a lot of the pskb_expand_head() callers are failing
that requirement.
Ok I guess we could call skb_orphan() unconditionally.
Or if you guys have a better patch I can test.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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