[Top] [All Lists]

Re: skb_pull, etc. panics.

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: skb_pull, etc. panics.
From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:58:48 -0400
Cc: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20010613032126.B5323@xxxxxxxxxx>; from ak@xxxxxx on Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 03:21:26AM +0200
References: <20010606141145.L31244@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010613032126.B5323@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 03:21:26AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 08:11:45PM +0200, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > Hi again,
> > 
> > If this is an FAQ, can someone point me to the reasons that skb_push()
> > and skb_put() panic rather than dropping the skb and complaining in the
> > log?
> > 
> > If not, why does it do that?
> Because an overflow or underflow is always a bug in the code. If you're 
> not sure if the skb has enough room you have to use *_expand_headroom and 
> friends. checking for it is considered debugging code and thus, overhead
that need not be in a production system?

> -Andi
> -- 
> Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.

        slainte mhath, RGB
Richard Guy Briggs -- PGP key available            Auto-Free Ottawa! Canada
<>                       <>
Prevent Internet Wiretapping!        --        FreeS/WAN:<>
Thanks for voting Green! -- <>      Marillion:<>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>