[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6CE04FE7-4904-4047-95F5-80461324CDA6@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:33:58 +0800
From: 严海双 <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: "=David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ip6_tunnel: fix potential issue in __ip6_tnl_rcv
> On 8 Jun 2017, at 1:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:56:58PM +0800, 严海双 wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Jun 2017, at 12:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:32:44PM +0800, Haishuang Yan wrote:
>>>> When __ip6_tnl_rcv fails, the tun_dst won't be freed, so call
>>>> dst_release to free it in error code path.
>>>>
>>>> CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
>>>> Fixes: 8d79266bc48c ("ip6_tunnel: add collect_md mode to IPv6 tunnels")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com>
>>>
>>> I don't get it. Why did you send another version of the patch?
>>> What was wrong with previous approach that myself and Eric acked?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sorry for your confusing, because Pravin Shelar give a feedback in ipv4 patch, see below:
>
> hmm. right.
> Then it raises the question: How did you test this and previous patch?
>
> since previous version was sort-of fixing the bug, but completely
> breaking the logic...
>
>
Sorry for my previous fault, I tried to fix this problem in theory without testing carefully.
I have tested the latest patches, it works ok now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists