Hi,
I'm totally confuzed by this patch ...
On 7/14/07, Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is a patch (& bug report) for a crash in sysctl_set_parent()
> in 2.6.22-git2.
Are you sure you saw this crash on 22-git2 (Linus' tree) ???
> Problem: 2.6.22-git2 crashes with a stack trace
> [c000000001d0fb00] c000000000067b4c .sysctl_set_parent+0x48/0x7c
> [c000000001d0fb90] c000000000069b40 .register_sysctl_table+0x7c/0xf4
> [c000000001d0fc30] c00000000065e710 .devinet_init+0x88/0xb0
> [c000000001d0fcc0] c00000000065db74 .ip_rt_init+0x17c/0x32c
> [c000000001d0fd70] c00000000065deec .ip_init+0x10/0x34
> [c000000001d0fdf0] c00000000065e898 .inet_init+0x160/0x3dc
> [c000000001d0fea0] c000000000630bc4 .kernel_init+0x204/0x3c8
Please post the full dmesg output, if possible.
> A bit of poking around makes it clear what the problem is:
> In sysctl_set_parent(), the for loop
>
> for (; table->ctl_name || table->procname; table++) {
Yup, but note that the "table" there is a struct ctl_table * ...
> walks off the end of the table, and into garbage. Basically,
> this for-loop iterator expects all table arrays to be
> "null terminated". However, net/ipv4/devinet.c statically
> declares an array that is not null-terminated.
Whereas the "not null-terminated" array you're talking about
in devinet.c is a struct devinet_sysctl_table, whose *members*
are ctl_table structs.
Also note that all those members have already been declared
as arrays: struct ctl_table xxx[2]; *precisely* because the
second element (which is left un-initialized, hence will get
zeroed-out being static) is what will protect us from running
out into garbage in sysctl_set_parent().
> The patch
> below fixes that; it works for me.
Now I'm even more confuzed ...
> Its somewhat conservative;
> if one wishes to assume that the compiler will always zero out
> the empty parts of the structure,
You can always safely assume that.
Off-topic, but note that unintialized static variables being automagically
initialized to zero / NULL is guaranteed by C (the language) itself, so
nothing left in the hands of compiler implementations here. [6.7.8:10]
> then this pach can be shrunk
> to one line: + ctl_table devinet_root_dir[3];
But that's pointless. It was already [2] for the reason I mentioned.
> Signed-off-by: Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
> net/core/neighbour.c | 4 ++++
> net/ipv4/devinet.c | 7 ++++++-
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Weirder. diffstat does not match the patch ...
> Index: linux-2.6.22-git2/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.22-git2.orig/net/ipv4/devinet.c 2007-07-13 14:23:21.000000000
> -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.22-git2/net/ipv4/devinet.c 2007-07-13 14:24:15.000000000
> -0500
> @@ -1424,7 +1424,7 @@ static struct devinet_sysctl_table {
> ctl_table devinet_dev[2];
> ctl_table devinet_conf_dir[2];
> ctl_table devinet_proto_dir[2];
> - ctl_table devinet_root_dir[2];
> + ctl_table devinet_root_dir[3];
> } devinet_sysctl = {
> .devinet_vars = {
> DEVINET_SYSCTL_COMPLEX_ENTRY(FORWARDING, "forwarding",
> @@ -1493,8 +1493,13 @@ static struct devinet_sysctl_table {
And Linus' latest -git doesn't even have this stuff at line 1493.
> .data = &ipv4_devconf.loop,
> .maxlen = sizeof(int),
> .mode = 0644,
> + .child = 0x0,
> .proc_handler = &proc_dointvec,
> },
> + {
> + .ctl_name = 0,
> + .procname = 0,
> + },
> },
> };
Well, as I said, I'm totally confuzed ...
Satyam
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
