Re: + oops-in-drivers-net-shaperc.patch added to -mm tree

2007-01-26 Thread David Miller
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:01:46 +1100 > In fact, the shaper device doesn't even seem to take a ref count of > the device it has attached to. So that device can go away at any time. > What's more, there are drivers that can change hard_header at run-time > (s39

Re: + oops-in-drivers-net-shaperc.patch added to -mm tree

2007-01-26 Thread David Miller
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:45:05 +1100 > David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Shaper is actually OK. None of these hardware header callbacks > > should be invoked if the device is down. Yet, this is what is > > accidently being allowed in the AF_PA

Re: + oops-in-drivers-net-shaperc.patch added to -mm tree

2007-01-26 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:45:05AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Shaper is actually OK. None of these hardware header callbacks > > should be invoked if the device is down. Yet, this is what is > > accidently being allowed in the AF_PACKET socket laye

Re: + oops-in-drivers-net-shaperc.patch added to -mm tree

2007-01-26 Thread Herbert Xu
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shaper is actually OK. None of these hardware header callbacks > should be invoked if the device is down. Yet, this is what is > accidently being allowed in the AF_PACKET socket layer. Hmm, what if the device goes down after the check? Cheers, -- Vi

Re: + oops-in-drivers-net-shaperc.patch added to -mm tree

2007-01-25 Thread David Miller
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:54:51 -0800 > Hi, > > The following code: > [...] > > Causes the following oops: > ... > [ 66.355188] [] error_code+0x7c/0x84 > [ 66.355192] [] packet_sendmsg+0x147/0x201 [af_packet] > [ 66.355199] [] sock_sendmsg+0xf9/0x116 > [ 66.3