[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57044B6D.8050703@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:34:05 -0400
From: Bastien Philbert <bastienphilbert@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, daniel@...earbox.net
Cc: vyasevich@...il.com, nhorman@...driver.com,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: Fix error handling for switch statement case in the
function sctp_cmd_interprete
On 2016-04-05 07:29 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 23:53:52 +0200
>
>> On 04/05/2016 11:36 PM, Bastien Philbert wrote:
>>> This fixes error handling for the switch statement case
>>> SCTP_CMD_SEND_PKT by making the error value of the call
>>> to sctp_packet_transmit equal the variable error due to
>>> this function being able to fail with a error code. In
>>
>> What actual issue have you observed that you fix?
>>
>>> addition allow the call to sctp_ootb_pkt_free afterwards
>>> to free up the no longer in use sctp packet even if the
>>> call to the function sctp_packet_transmit fails in order
>>> to avoid a memory leak here for not freeing the sctp
>>
>> Not sure how this relates to your code?
>
> Bastien, I'm seeing a clear negative pattern with the bug fixes
> you are submitting.
>
> Just now you submitted the ICMP change which obviously was never
> tested because it tried to take the RTNL mutex in atomic context,
> and now this sctp thing.
>
> If you don't start actually testing your changes and expalining
> clearly what the problem actually is, how you discovered it,
> and how you actually tested your patch, I will start completely
> ignoring your patch submissions.
>
Ok sure I will be more careful with my future patches. Sorry about those
two patches :(.
Bastien
Powered by blists - more mailing lists