[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121129162818.GA6615@shrek.podlesie.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:28:18 +0100
From: Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
chas williams - CONTRACTOR <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>,
davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nathan@...verse.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pppoatm: protect against freeing of vcc
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:47:57PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 16:09 +0100, Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> >
> > I don't like two thinks about this patch:
> >
> > - if allos_skb(sizeof(*header), GFP_ATOMIC) at beginning of
> > pclose() fails we will crash
> >
> > - if card wakes up after this timeout we will probably crash too
> >
> > That's why proposed different approach, but it has other problems.
>
> How about this variant on what you suggested. Yes, we can definitely
> remove everything that's in the queue... as long as we use
> skb_queue_walk_safe() instead of skb_queue_walk().
>
> We can use GFP_KERNEL instead of GFP_ATOMIC, which at least reduces the
> likelihood of failing to close the vcc.
>
> We end up waiting *only* if there is a packet which is *currently* being
> DMA'd to the card. And if the card doesn't take that within 5 seconds,
> it almost certainly never will. So I can live with that.
>
Yeah, that shouldn't happen.
> + if (!test_bit(ATM_VF_READY, &vcc->flags))
> + wake_up(&card->param_wq);
> + } else
according to CodingStyle:
+ } else {
> dev_kfree_skb_irq(oldskb);
> - }
+ }
Krzysiek
--
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