On Sun, 2005-04-09 at 20:20 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > There is no need to check for NULL; if you got that far dev cannot be
> > NULL (refer to the first check for parm->ifindex). The device could not
> > have disapeared since we are protected by rtnl semaphore.
>
> It doesn
jamal wrote:
Was this a patch you sent? I also had to stare at it for a minute ..
Yes.
There is no need to check for NULL; if you got that far dev cannot be
NULL (refer to the first check for parm->ifindex). The device could not
have disapeared since we are protected by rtnl semaphore.
It d
On Fri, 2005-02-09 at 02:42 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Ben Greear wrote:
> >
> > At about line 132 of mirred.c, there is this code:
> >
> > if (parm->ifindex) {
> > p->ifindex = parm->ifindex;
> > if (ret != ACT_P_CREATED)
> >
> > *** It appears that this check could all
Ben Greear wrote:
>
> At about line 132 of mirred.c, there is this code:
>
> if (parm->ifindex) {
> p->ifindex = parm->ifindex;
> if (ret != ACT_P_CREATED)
>
> *** It appears that this check could allow over-writing of p->dev below
> without ever calling dev_put on the p-
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:39:31 -0700
> Also, earlier in the method it does a __dev_get_by_index(parm->ifindex),
> and continues to use the returned value after that. Couldn't this lead
> to a reference-after-free, or does external locking prohibit this?
Prob
