Fri, 26 May 2006 19:26:11 -0700 (PDT), David Miller pise:
> From: Jiri Benc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:08:06 +0200
> > I don't think this is correct. netdev_run_todo calls dev->destructor
> > which is set to free_netdev by br_dev_setup. So you're calling
> > free_netdev on alre
From: Jiri Benc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:08:06 +0200
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:23:31 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > + unregister_netdevice(dev);
> > + err:
> > rtnl_unlock();
> > + if (ret)
> > + free_netdev(dev);
> > return ret;
>
> I don't
On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:23:31 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> + unregister_netdevice(dev);
> + err:
> rtnl_unlock();
> + if (ret)
> + free_netdev(dev);
> return ret;
I don't think this is correct. netdev_run_todo calls dev->destructor
which is set to free_n
There are several bugs in error handling in br_add_bridge:
- when dev_alloc_name fails, allocated net_device is not freed
- unregister_netdev is called when rtnl lock is held
- free_netdev is called before netdev_run_todo has a chance to be run after
unregistering net_device
This patch should fi
There are several bugs in error handling in br_add_bridge:
- when dev_alloc_name fails, allocated net_device is not freed
- unregister_netdev is called when rtnl lock is held
- free_netdev is called before netdev_run_todo has a chance to be run after
unregistering net_device
This patch should fi