[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [NET] Add missing newline for skb_*_panic

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [NET] Add missing newline for skb_*_panic
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:02:29 +0200
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050421235052.GA10371@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050421050815.GA23133@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42682527.3000709@xxxxxxxxx> <42682718.3060601@xxxxxxxxx> <20050421231437.GA10119@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42683662.6060003@xxxxxxxxx> <20050421235052.GA10371@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050324 Debian/1.7.6-1
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:25:22AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:

BTW, Do you know if that ppp problem (Fw: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4381] New:
When i try to start a pppoe conn., crash at net/core/skbuff.c:91) was
already fixed? Otherwise I'd suggest that the reporter should capture
a crash again with this patch applied.

Unfortunately the reporter says that he can't reproduce it.

However, I have the suspicion that this is really the same as the
vpnc/tun bug (4279) that prompted you to make the self-modification
fix to tun.c.

Now there is no doubt that your patch fixed a real bug in tun.c.
However, I don't think it could have caused the crash in 4279.
The reason is that the crash dump shows that the length that
was supplied to skb_put is in fact positive (0xe4 in one case
and 0xf4 in another).

You're probably right, I only spent a few minutes looking for a
possible reason. Unfortunately the skb_over_panic() output wasn't
included in the report.

As soon as I get confirmation from the submitter that he can
still reproduce this I'll get him to try your debugging patch.

Great, thanks.


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