On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:04:22AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
J> On Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:24:21 pm Martin Birgmeier wrote:
J> > I am looking at net/if_tun.c, function tunwrite() (this is 7.4, but 8.2
J> > is nearly the same):
J> >
J> > There is a local variable "error" which is initialized to zero and then
J> > seemingly never changed, until it is used as a return value if
J> > m_uiotombuf() fails:
J> >
J> > ...
J> > int error = 0;
J> > ...
J> > if ((m = m_uiotombuf(uio, M_DONTWAIT, 0, 0, M_PKTHDR)) == NULL) {
J> > ifp->if_ierrors++;
J> > return (error);
J> > }
J> > ...
J> > a little further down, we see
J> > ...
J> > if (m->m_len < sizeof(family) &&
J> > (m = m_pullup(m, sizeof(family))) == NULL)
J> > return (ENOBUFS);
J> > ...
J> >
J> > As far as I can see, the first return amounts to "drop the packet, but
J> > don't tell anything about it", whereas the second amounts to "drop the
J> > packet and say it's due to ENOBUFS".
J> >
J> > However, the first case is much more like ENOBUFS, so shouldn't we
J> > simply say "return (ENOBUFS)" there and remove the "error" variable
J> > altogether?
J>
J> Yes, this error seems to have been introduced in 137101 when if_tun was
J> switched to use m_uiotombuf() rather than a home-rolled version. tap(4) had
J> the same bug, but it was fixed in 163986. I think this patch should be ok
for
J> tun(4):
J>
J> Index: if_tun.c
J> ===================================================================
J> --- if_tun.c (revision 222565)
J> +++ if_tun.c (working copy)
J> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ static void tunclone(void *arg, struct ucred *cred
J> int namelen, struct cdev **dev);
J> static void tuncreate(const char *name, struct cdev *dev);
J> static int tunifioctl(struct ifnet *, u_long, caddr_t);
J> -static int tuninit(struct ifnet *);
J> +static void tuninit(struct ifnet *);
J> static int tunmodevent(module_t, int, void *);
J> static int tunoutput(struct ifnet *, struct mbuf *, struct sockaddr *,
J> struct route *ro);
J> @@ -494,14 +494,13 @@ tunclose(struct cdev *dev, int foo, int bar, struc
J> return (0);
J> }
J>
J> -static int
J> +static void
J> tuninit(struct ifnet *ifp)
J> {
J> struct tun_softc *tp = ifp->if_softc;
J> #ifdef INET
J> struct ifaddr *ifa;
J> #endif
J> - int error = 0;
J>
J> TUNDEBUG(ifp, "tuninit\n");
J>
J> @@ -528,7 +527,6 @@ tuninit(struct ifnet *ifp)
J> if_addr_runlock(ifp);
J> #endif
J> mtx_unlock(&tp->tun_mtx);
J> - return (error);
J> }
J>
J> /*
J> @@ -552,12 +550,12 @@ tunifioctl(struct ifnet *ifp, u_long cmd, caddr_t
J> mtx_unlock(&tp->tun_mtx);
J> break;
J> case SIOCSIFADDR:
J> - error = tuninit(ifp);
J> - TUNDEBUG(ifp, "address set, error=%d\n", error);
J> + tuninit(ifp);
J> + TUNDEBUG(ifp, "address set\n");
J> break;
J> case SIOCSIFDSTADDR:
J> - error = tuninit(ifp);
J> - TUNDEBUG(ifp, "destination address set, error=%d\n", error);
J> + tuninit(ifp);
J> + TUNDEBUG(ifp, "destination address set\n");
J> break;
J> case SIOCSIFMTU:
J> ifp->if_mtu = ifr->ifr_mtu;
J> @@ -857,7 +855,6 @@ tunwrite(struct cdev *dev, struct uio *uio, int fl
J> struct tun_softc *tp = dev->si_drv1;
J> struct ifnet *ifp = TUN2IFP(tp);
J> struct mbuf *m;
J> - int error = 0;
J> uint32_t family;
J> int isr;
J>
J> @@ -877,7 +874,7 @@ tunwrite(struct cdev *dev, struct uio *uio, int fl
J>
J> if ((m = m_uiotombuf(uio, M_DONTWAIT, 0, 0, M_PKTHDR)) == NULL) {
J> ifp->if_ierrors++;
J> - return (error);
J> + return (ENOBUFS);
J> }
J>
J> m->m_pkthdr.rcvif = ifp;
Yes, that would be correct. Sorry, my bug :(
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
