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]

Date:	Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:57:25 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...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, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.

Then why mirred_cleanup_module() appears in the top of your backtrace?

>
>>
>> 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.
>
>

The current code is smarter actually. Sure, please fix act_api.c as well?
--
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