On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com> wrote:
> Commit 78a2d59c (dpif-linux.c: Let the kernel pick a port number if one
> not requested.) changed the logic for port assignment, but didn't
> properly handle some error conditions. An attempt to add a tunnel port
> that already exists would lead to a segfault. This commit fixes the
> logic to stop processing and return an error.
>
> Reported-by: Gurucharan Shetty <shet...@nicira.com>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com>
> ---
> lib/dpif-linux.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/dpif-linux.c b/lib/dpif-linux.c
> index 63d7afb..a8544d7 100644
> --- a/lib/dpif-linux.c
> +++ b/lib/dpif-linux.c
> @@ -475,9 +475,11 @@ dpif_linux_port_add(struct dpif *dpif_, struct netdev
> *netdev,
> *port_nop = reply.port_no;
> VLOG_DBG("%s: assigning port %"PRIu32" to netlink pid %"PRIu32,
> dpif_name(dpif_), reply.port_no, upcall_pid);
> - } else if (error == EBUSY && *port_nop != UINT32_MAX) {
> - VLOG_INFO("%s: requested port %"PRIu32" is in use",
> - dpif_name(dpif_), *port_nop);
> + } else {
> + if (error == EBUSY && *port_nop != UINT32_MAX) {
> + VLOG_INFO("%s: requested port %"PRIu32" is in use",
> + dpif_name(dpif_), *port_nop);
> + }
> nl_sock_destroy(sock);
> ofpbuf_delete(buf);
> return error;
> --
If the kernel returns success but port_nop is UINT32_MAX, I think we
will still segfault. That probably is not an issue since the kernel is
not supposed to do that?
> 1.7.5.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
