[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110609.002055.558422517682261395.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: lucian.grijincu@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: dummy: allocate devices with alloc_netdev_id
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 02:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:30:38 +0300
>
>> @David: I see [1][2] that you marked the patches as Rejected. If it's
>> not a script that sends all my patches to /dev/null because of the
>> 100+ patch set I sent a while back, could you tell me why you rejected
>> the patches?
>
> I misfired while changing patch states earlier today, I put them back
> into "Under Review"
So I took a look again, you're patches introduce problems.
We don't do the instance allocation and (more importantly) conflict
validation of the netdev name in alloc_netdev_mqs(), we do it when the
netdev is registered.
So with your patch some other entity could rename a random netdev
to "dummy62" in between the alloc_netdev_id() call and the register
and the register will fail erroneously.
I really don't like this optimization, sorry. Make dev_alloc_name()
less stupid instead.
--
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