Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
12 个月 前同步成功

通知 152
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 26 4月, 2007 21 次提交
  3. 25 4月, 2007 2 次提交
  5. 14 4月, 2007 1 次提交
  7. 07 4月, 2007 1 次提交
  9. 05 4月, 2007 1 次提交
  11. 03 4月, 2007 1 次提交
    • Y
      [IPv6]: Fix incorrect length check in rawv6_sendmsg() · b59e139b
      由 YOSHIFUJI Hideaki 提交于 
      In article <20070329.142644.70222545.davem@davemloft.net> (at Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT)), David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> says:

> From: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:17:28 -0700
>
> > The check for length in rawv6_sendmsg() is incorrect.
> > As len is an unsigned int, (len < 0) will never be TRUE.
> > I think checking for IPV6_MAXPLEN(65535) is better.
> >
> > Is it possible to send ipv6 jumbo packets using raw
> > sockets? If so, we can remove this check.
>
> I don't see why such a limitation against jumbo would exist,
> does anyone else?
>
> Thanks for catching this Sridhar.  A good compiler should simply
> fail to compile "if (x < 0)" when 'x' is an unsigned type, don't
> you think :-)

Dave, we use "int" for returning value,
so we should fix this anyway, IMHO;
we should not allow len > INT_MAX.
Signed-off-by: NYOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Acked-by: NSridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      b59e139b
  13. 28 3月, 2007 1 次提交
  15. 26 3月, 2007 2 次提交
    • D
      [IPV6]: Fix routing round-robin locking. · f11e6659
      由 David S. Miller 提交于 
      As per RFC2461, section 6.3.6, item #2, when no routers on the
matching list are known to be reachable or probably reachable we
do round robin on those available routes so that we make sure
to probe as many of them as possible to detect when one becomes
reachable faster.

Each routing table has a rwlock protecting the tree and the linked
list of routes at each leaf.  The round robin code executes during
lookup and thus with the rwlock taken as a reader.  A small local
spinlock tries to provide protection but this does not work at all
for two reasons:

1) The round-robin list manipulation, as coded, goes like this (with
   read lock held):

	walk routes finding head and tail

	spin_lock();
	rotate list using head and tail
	spin_unlock();

   While one thread is rotating the list, another thread can
   end up with stale values of head and tail and then proceed
   to corrupt the list when it gets the lock.  This ends up causing
   the OOPS in fib6_add() later onthat many people have been hitting.

2) All the other code paths that run with the rwlock held as
   a reader do not expect the list to change on them, they
   expect it to remain completely fixed while they hold the
   lock in that way.

So, simply stated, it is impossible to implement this correctly using
a manipulation of the list without violating the rwlock locking
semantics.

Reimplement using a per-fib6_node round-robin pointer.  This way we
don't need to manipulate the list at all, and since the round-robin
pointer can only ever point to real existing entries we don't need
to perform any locking on the changing of the round-robin pointer
itself.  We only need to reset the round-robin pointer to NULL when
the entry it is pointing to is removed.

The idea is from Thomas Graf and it is very similar to how this
was implemented before the advanced router selection code when in.
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      f11e6659
    • T
      [NET]: Fix fib_rules compatibility breakage · e1701c68
      由 Thomas Graf 提交于 
      Based upon a patch from Patrick McHardy.

The fib_rules netlink attribute policy introduced in 2.6.19 broke
userspace compatibilty. When specifying a rule with "from all"
or "to all", iproute adds a zero byte long netlink attribute,
but the policy requires all addresses to have a size equal to
sizeof(struct in_addr)/sizeof(struct in6_addr), resulting in a
validation error.

Check attribute length of FRA_SRC/FRA_DST in the generic framework
by letting the family specific rules implementation provide the
length of an address. Report an error if address length is non
zero but no address attribute is provided. Fix actual bug by
checking address length for non-zero instead of relying on
availability of attribute.
Signed-off-by: NThomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Signed-off-by: NPatrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      e1701c68
  17. 23 3月, 2007 1 次提交
  19. 17 3月, 2007 1 次提交
  21. 10 3月, 2007 2 次提交
  23. 08 3月, 2007 3 次提交
  25. 06 3月, 2007 2 次提交
  27. 01 3月, 2007 1 次提交