[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120812.134231.2073879653802622537.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: danborkmann@...earbox.net
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] af_packet: remove BUG statement in
tpacket_destruct_skb
From: Daniel Borkmann <danborkmann@...earbox.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:48:54 +0200
> Here's a quote of the comment about the BUG macro from asm-generic/bug.h:
>
> Don't use BUG() or BUG_ON() unless there's really no way out; one
> example might be detecting data structure corruption in the middle
> of an operation that can't be backed out of. If the (sub)system
> can somehow continue operating, perhaps with reduced functionality,
> it's probably not BUG-worthy.
>
> If you're tempted to BUG(), think again: is completely giving up
> really the *only* solution? There are usually better options, where
> users don't need to reboot ASAP and can mostly shut down cleanly.
>
> In our case, the status flag of a ring buffer slot is managed from both sides,
> the kernel space and the user space. This means that even though the kernel
> side might work as expected, the user space screws up and changes this flag
> right between the send(2) is triggered when the flag is changed to
> TP_STATUS_SENDING and a given skb is destructed after some time. Then, this
> will hit the BUG macro. As David suggested, the best solution is to simply
> remove this statement since it cannot be used for kernel side internal
> consistency checks. I've tested it and the system still behaves /stable/ in
> this case, so in accordance with the above comment, we should rather remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel.borkmann@....ee.ethz.ch>
Applied.
--
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