netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] vxlan: remove the redundant gro_cells

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, 15 Mar 2019 11:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:     sbrivio@...hat.com, liuzhiqiang26@...wei.com, petrm@...lanox.com,
        idosch@...lanox.com, sd@...asysnail.net, mousuanming@...wei.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, mingfangsen@...wei.com,
        zhoukang7@...wei.com, wangxiaogang3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vxlan: remove the redundant gro_cells_destroy()
 calling.

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:06:25 -0700

> 
> 
> On 03/15/2019 08:28 AM, Stefano Brivio wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 23:18:52 +0800
>> Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@...wei.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In vxlan_destroy_tunnels func, unregister_netdevice_queue is called after
>>> gro_cells_destroy func. However, in unregister_netdevice_queue func, the
>>> gro_cells_destroy func will also call the gro_cells_destroy func as the
>>> following routine:
>>> unregister_netdevice_many() -> rollback_registered_many()
>>> -> ndo_uninit() -> gro_cells_destroy()  
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suanming.Mou <mousuanming@...wei.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@...wei.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
>> 
>> NACK, please read my and Eric's comments to v1 -- giving me more than 23
>> minutes to answer would have been a nice touch as well :)
>> 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion, I forgot to add the question marks to my sentences.
> 
> In fact, this is a bug fix, that we missed in the previous fix.
> 
> Technically the bug is older.

Please elaborate.