[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAML_gOdF=7JAqK4Y8y_9t6t-ajHupHDkFF3wTW-bX28dHXcrPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:44:56 +0800
From: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@...il.com>
To: Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org>
Cc: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@....com>,
Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil McKee <neil.mckee@...on.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V2] openvswitch: fix skb_panic due to the incorrect
actions attrlen
2017-08-16 7:35 GMT+08:00 Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org>:
[...]
>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/actions.c b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
>> index e4610676299b..f849ef52853f 100644
>> --- a/net/openvswitch/actions.c
>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
>> @@ -921,6 +921,7 @@ static int output_userspace(struct datapath *dp, struct sk_buff *skb,
>> /* Include actions. */
>> upcall.actions = actions;
>> upcall.actions_len = actions_len;
>> + upcall.actions_attrlen = OVS_CB(skb)->acts_origlen;
> OVS_CB acts_origlen should be accessible in upcall_msg_size (), is
> there reason to add this member to struct dp_upcall_info?
Hmm... this means we should add an extra parameter to the upcall_msg_size()
function, i.e.:
static size_t upcall_msg_size(const struct dp_upcall_info *upcall_info,
- unsigned int hdrlen)
+ unsigned int hdrlen, int actions_attrlen)
So which one do you prefer? If the latter, I can send V3.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists