David Miller wrote:
From: Kazunori MIYAZAWA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:38:39 +0900
What is going on here?
+ /* Without this, the atomic inc below segfaults */
+ if (encap_family == AF_INET6) {
+ rt->peer = NULL;
+ rt_bind_peer(rt,1);
+ }
...
- dst_prev->output = xfrm4_output;
+ if (dst_prev->xfrm->props.family == AF_INET)
+ dst_prev->output = xfrm4_output;
+#if defined(CONFIG_IPV6) || defined (CONFIG_IPV6_MODULE)
+ else
+ dst_prev->output = xfrm6_output;
+#endif
if (rt->peer)
atomic_inc(&rt->peer->refcnt);
If it's non-NULL and you get a segfault for atomic_inc() that
means there is garbage here, and it seems that if you're
setting it to NULL explicitly then it's just a workaround
for whatever problem is causing it to be non-NULL to begin
with.
What is putting a non-valid pointer value there? Is this an IPV6 or
IPSEC dst route by chance? If so, that makes this change really
wrong, and we are corrupting the route by running rt_bind_peer() on
it. rt_bind_peer() is only valid on ipv4 route entries.
Thank you for your good catch.
I think atomic_inc must be done in case of props.family == AF_INET.
And we probably should manage reference count of the device in case of
AF_INET6.
Anyway I'll check and fix it.
Thank you.
--
Kazunori Miyazawa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
