[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C1755C1.3060804@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:28:17 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>
CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Qianfeng Zhang <frzhang@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] bridge: Fix netpoll support
On 06/11/10 10:12, Herbert Xu wrote:
> bridge: Fix netpoll support
>
> There are multiple problems with the newly added netpoll support:
>
> 1) Use-after-free on each netpoll packet.
> 2) Invoking unsafe code on netpoll/IRQ path.
> 3) Breaks when netpoll is enabled on the underlying device.
>
> This patch fixes all of these problems. In particular, we now
> allocate proper netpoll structures for each underlying device.
>
> We only allow netpoll to be enabled on the bridge when all the
> devices underneath it support netpoll. Once it is enabled, we
> do not allow non-netpoll devices to join the bridge (until netpoll
> is disabled again).
>
This is a good idea!
> This allows us to do away with the npinfo juggling that caused
> problem number 1.
>
> Incidentally this patch fixes number 2 by bypassing unsafe code
> such as multicast snooping and netfilter.
Not sure if I understand problem 2) and 3), this patch is not easy
to review. So, what's the point of adding ->np to struct net_bridge_port?
since we already have p->dev->npinfo->netpoll?
Thanks!
--
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