netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net_sched: fix a regression in tcf_proto_lookup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1387568188.19078.453.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:36:28 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net_sched: fix a regression in
 tcf_proto_lookup_ops()

On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 11:11 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(t, &tcf_proto_base, head) doesn't
> > exit with t = NULL if we reached the end of the list.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > Fixes: 3627287463b4 ("net_sched: convert tcf_proto_ops to use struct
> > list_head")
> > Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  net/sched/cls_api.c |   22 ++++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> The bug you reported to me yesterday is in mirred action module cleanup,
> so how is it possible to be fixed in cls_api.c? It should be act_api.c.
> 
> If you meant to fix a different bug, please include the backtrace in the log?

Why ? 

I think the bug is obvious and do not need a verbose stack trace in the
changelog.

Even you were not able to decrypt it, as you thought it was a bug in
mirred code. You keep saying it was cause by module cleanup, while
I already said the module was not removed at all.

> 
> Your patch looks good generally, but actually I doubt we need to check for
> an existing ops when unregistering, since we almost for sure only unregister
> existing ones as they are all static allocated.

Well, lets fix the bug first. I do not think there is any point trying
to be smart in this slow path. Particularly if I have to spend 2 more
hours to fix some random bug.


--
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