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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1422859762.7028.2@smtp.corp.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 06:57:22 +0008 From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> To: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com> Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>, "olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH net] hyperv: Fix the error processing in netvsc_send() On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jason Wang [mailto:jasowang@...hat.com] >> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:25 AM >> > + if (ret != 0) { >> > + if (section_index != NETVSC_INVALID_INDEX) >> > + netvsc_free_send_slot(net_device, section_index); >> >> What if ret is -EINVAL or -ENOSPC? Looks like we need free the skb >> in >> this case also. > > In these cases, skb is freed in netvsc_start_xmit(). > > >> > >> > + } else if (skb) { >> > + dev_kfree_skb_any(skb); >> >> The caller - netvsc_start_xmit() do this also, may be handle this in >> caller is better since netvsc_start_xmit() is the only user that >> tries >> to send a skb? > > When the packet is sent out normally, we frees it in netvsc_send() if > it's > copied to send-buffer. The free is done in netvsc_send(), because the > copy > is also in this function. If it's not copied, it will be freed in > another > function -- netvsc_xmit_completion(). > > netvsc_start_xmit() only does free skb in error case. Ok. > > >> btw, I find during netvsc_start_xmit(), ret was change to -ENOSPC >> when >> queue_sends[q_idx] < 1. But non of the caller check -ENOSPC in fact? > > In this case, we don't request re-send, so set ret to a value other > than > -EAGAIN. Why not? We have available slots for it to be sent now. Dropping the packet in this case may cause out of order sending. > It's handled in the same way as errors != -EAGAIN, so we don't > need to check this value specifically. Thanks -- 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