On 2019/5/7 下午10:47, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 5/6/19 11:54 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2019/5/7 上午11:41, Eric Dumazet wrote:
If you remove the test on (!numqueues),
the following might crash with a divide by zero...
Indeed, let me post V2.
You probably want to fix tun_ebpf_select_queue() a
On 5/6/19 11:54 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2019/5/7 上午11:41, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>>
>> If you remove the test on (!numqueues),
>> the following might crash with a divide by zero...
>
>
> Indeed, let me post V2.
You probably want to fix tun_ebpf_select_queue() as well.
On 2019/5/7 上午11:41, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 5/6/19 11:23 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
When a queue(tfile) is detached through __tun_detach(), we move the
last enabled tfile to the position where detached one sit but don't
NULL out last position. We expect to synchronize the datapath through
tun->num
On 5/6/19 11:23 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> When a queue(tfile) is detached through __tun_detach(), we move the
> last enabled tfile to the position where detached one sit but don't
> NULL out last position. We expect to synchronize the datapath through
> tun->numqueues. Unfortunately, this won't wo
When a queue(tfile) is detached through __tun_detach(), we move the
last enabled tfile to the position where detached one sit but don't
NULL out last position. We expect to synchronize the datapath through
tun->numqueues. Unfortunately, this won't work since we're lacking
sufficient mechanism to or
