Looks good to me. I don't think this should cause any bugs btw. What
will happen is in non-extended mode some junk will be shoved in the
zero section of the CCM. Shouldn't cause any problems, but of course
it's best not to do this.
Will you please backport this to the appropriate branches?
Thanks,
Ethan
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> Found by valgrind:
>
> Syscall param socketcall.sendmsg(msg.msg_iov[i]) points to uninitialised
> byte(s)
> at 0x42D3021: sendmsg (in /lib/libc-2.5.so)
> by 0x80E4D23: nl_sock_transact (netlink-socket.c:670)
> by 0x80D9086: dpif_linux_execute__ (dpif-linux.c:872)
> by 0x807D6AE: dpif_execute__ (dpif.c:957)
> by 0x807D6FE: dpif_execute (dpif.c:987)
> by 0x805DED9: send_packet (ofproto-dpif.c:4727)
> by 0x805F8E1: port_run_fast (ofproto-dpif.c:2441)
> by 0x8065CF6: run_fast (ofproto-dpif.c:926)
> by 0x805674F: ofproto_run_fast (ofproto.c:1148)
> by 0x804C957: bridge_run_fast (bridge.c:1980)
> by 0x8053F49: main (ovs-vswitchd.c:123)
> Address 0xbea0895c is on thread 1's stack
>
> Bug #11797.
> Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
> ---
> lib/cfm.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/cfm.c b/lib/cfm.c
> index 670f037..543d4b4 100644
> --- a/lib/cfm.c
> +++ b/lib/cfm.c
> @@ -462,6 +462,8 @@ cfm_compose_ccm(struct cfm *cfm, struct ofpbuf *packet,
> if (cfm->ccm_interval == 0) {
> assert(cfm->extended);
> ccm->interval_ms_x = htons(cfm->ccm_interval_ms);
> + } else {
> + ccm->interval_ms_x = htons(0);
> }
>
> if (hmap_is_empty(&cfm->remote_mps)) {
> --
> 1.7.2.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
