From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:51:51 -0700
> Sorry for the false alarm, I have no idea what when wrong here. Glad
> the bug is really fixed.
Nothing to be sorry about, it's great that you double checked
things even if it turned out to be a false alarm in the end.
-
T
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:31:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:26:01 -0700
>
> > Working fine here. Any chance you booted a stale kernel?
> > If not, what's your nl_fib_input+0xe4. Any chance that's
> > actually in nl_fib_lookup
From: Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:26:01 -0700
> Working fine here. Any chance you booted a stale kernel?
> If not, what's your nl_fib_input+0xe4. Any chance that's
> actually in nl_fib_lookup?
I'm seriously hoping it's a stale kernel or similar,
because I can't ac
* Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > fyi, here's the patch that I applied, perhaps 2.6.20 needed something
> > else too?
>
> > @@ -809,7 +815,7 @@ static void nl_fib_input(struct sock *sk
> >
> > nl_fib_lookup(frn, tb);
> >
> > - pid = n
* Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> fyi, here's the patch that I applied, perhaps 2.6.20 needed something
> else too?
> @@ -809,7 +815,7 @@ static void nl_fib_input(struct sock *sk
>
> nl_fib_lookup(frn, tb);
>
> - pid = nlh->nlmsg_pid; /*pid of sending process */
>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:44:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:32:01PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:29:12 -0700
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:32:01PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:29:12 -0700
>
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Reply to
* Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> > >
> > > Reply to NETLINK_FIB_LOOKUP messages were misrouted back to kernel,
> > > which resulted in infinite recursion and stack ove
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:29:12 -0700
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> > >
> > > Reply to NETLINK_FIB_LOOKUP messages were misrouted back to kernel,
> > > which resulted
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> >
> > Reply to NETLINK_FIB_LOOKUP messages were misrouted back to kernel,
> > which resulted in infinite recursion and stack overflow.
Wait, I just had the bright idea of actuall
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> Reply to NETLINK_FIB_LOOKUP messages were misrouted back to kernel,
> which resulted in infinite recursion and stack overflow.
So I assume it's this line that actually _fixes_ it:
> - pid = nlh->nlmsg_pid; /*pid of sending process
From: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
> If so, shouldn't we also have some safety-net to make sure it doesn't
> still get routed back forever, ie adding something like
>
> if (!pid) {
> skb_free(skb);
> return -EINV
12 matches
Mail list logo
