On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:59:52PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > Pushed, thanks for reviews! > > Some comments below, > > Jarno > > On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:22:19AM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > >> Commit da546e0 (dpif: Allow execute to modify the packet.) uninitializes > >> the "dpif_upcall.packet" of "struct upcall" when dpif_recv() returns error. > >> The packet ofpbuf is likely uninitialized in this case, hence calling > >> ofpbuf_uninit() on it will likely cause a SEGFAULT. > >> > >> This commit fixes this bug by only uninitializing packet's ofpbuf on > >> successfully received upcalls. > >> > >> A note warning about this is added on the comment of dpif_recv() in > >> dpif-provider.h. > >> > >> Reported-by: Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com> > > > > I'd add a similar comment on dpif_recv() also. > > > > Added. > > > Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> > > > > (Another approach would be to make dpif_recv() initialize the buffer > > on error return.) > > Typically every second dpif_recv() fails (no more upcalls), so this > would be somewhat more (unnecessary) work. Might be a bit more > robust, though?
Dunno. I was happy with it as-is, it was just another thought. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
