* [PATCH] cgroup: fix panic in netprio_cgroup
@ 2012-07-05 8:31 Gao feng
2012-07-05 8:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-05 8:58 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gao feng @ 2012-07-05 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: davem; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, nhorman, tj, lizefan, Gao feng
we set max_prioidx to the first zero bit index of prioidx_map in
function get_prioidx.
So when we delete the low index netprio cgroup and adding a new
netprio cgroup again,the max_prioidx will be set to the low index.
when we set the high index cgroup's net_prio.ifpriomap,the function
write_priomap will call update_netdev_tables to alloc memory which
size is sizeof(struct netprio_map) + sizeof(u32) * (max_prioidx + 1),
so the size of array that map->priomap point to is max_prioidx +1,
which is low than what we actually need.
fix this by adding check in get_prioidx,only set max_prioidx when
max_prioidx low than the new prioidx.
Signed-off-by: Gao feng <gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
net/core/netprio_cgroup.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c b/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c
index 5b8aa2f..586f7d9 100644
--- a/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c
+++ b/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c
@@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ static int get_prioidx(u32 *prio)
}
set_bit(prioidx, prioidx_map);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prioidx_map_lock, flags);
- atomic_set(&max_prioidx, prioidx);
+ if (atomic_read(&max_prioidx) < prioidx)
+ atomic_set(&max_prioidx, prioidx);
*prio = prioidx;
return 0;
}
--
1.7.7.6
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix panic in netprio_cgroup
2012-07-05 8:31 [PATCH] cgroup: fix panic in netprio_cgroup Gao feng
@ 2012-07-05 8:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-05 9:10 ` Gao feng
2012-07-05 8:58 ` David Miller
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2012-07-05 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gao feng; +Cc: davem, netdev, linux-kernel, nhorman, tj, lizefan
On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 16:31 +0800, Gao feng wrote:
> we set max_prioidx to the first zero bit index of prioidx_map in
> function get_prioidx.
>
> So when we delete the low index netprio cgroup and adding a new
> netprio cgroup again,the max_prioidx will be set to the low index.
>
> when we set the high index cgroup's net_prio.ifpriomap,the function
> write_priomap will call update_netdev_tables to alloc memory which
> size is sizeof(struct netprio_map) + sizeof(u32) * (max_prioidx + 1),
> so the size of array that map->priomap point to is max_prioidx +1,
> which is low than what we actually need.
>
> fix this by adding check in get_prioidx,only set max_prioidx when
> max_prioidx low than the new prioidx.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao feng <gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> net/core/netprio_cgroup.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c b/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c
> index 5b8aa2f..586f7d9 100644
> --- a/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c
> +++ b/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c
> @@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ static int get_prioidx(u32 *prio)
> }
> set_bit(prioidx, prioidx_map);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prioidx_map_lock, flags);
> - atomic_set(&max_prioidx, prioidx);
> + if (atomic_read(&max_prioidx) < prioidx)
> + atomic_set(&max_prioidx, prioidx);
> *prio = prioidx;
> return 0;
> }
This is still racy.
Please do this before the
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prioidx_map_lock, flags);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix panic in netprio_cgroup
2012-07-05 8:31 [PATCH] cgroup: fix panic in netprio_cgroup Gao feng
2012-07-05 8:43 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2012-07-05 8:58 ` David Miller
2012-07-05 9:15 ` Gao feng
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2012-07-05 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gaofeng; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, nhorman, tj, lizefan
Why did you post this twice?
Is there a difference between the first patch and the second
one you posted? If so, what is that difference?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix panic in netprio_cgroup
2012-07-05 8:43 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2012-07-05 9:10 ` Gao feng
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gao feng @ 2012-07-05 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet; +Cc: davem, netdev, linux-kernel, nhorman, tj, lizefan
于 2012年07月05日 16:43, Eric Dumazet 写道:
> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 16:31 +0800, Gao feng wrote:
>> we set max_prioidx to the first zero bit index of prioidx_map in
>> function get_prioidx.
>>
>> So when we delete the low index netprio cgroup and adding a new
>> netprio cgroup again,the max_prioidx will be set to the low index.
>>
>> when we set the high index cgroup's net_prio.ifpriomap,the function
>> write_priomap will call update_netdev_tables to alloc memory which
>> size is sizeof(struct netprio_map) + sizeof(u32) * (max_prioidx + 1),
>> so the size of array that map->priomap point to is max_prioidx +1,
>> which is low than what we actually need.
>>
>> fix this by adding check in get_prioidx,only set max_prioidx when
>> max_prioidx low than the new prioidx.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gao feng <gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> net/core/netprio_cgroup.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c b/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c
>> index 5b8aa2f..586f7d9 100644
>> --- a/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c
>> +++ b/net/core/netprio_cgroup.c
>> @@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ static int get_prioidx(u32 *prio)
>> }
>> set_bit(prioidx, prioidx_map);
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prioidx_map_lock, flags);
>> - atomic_set(&max_prioidx, prioidx);
>> + if (atomic_read(&max_prioidx) < prioidx)
>> + atomic_set(&max_prioidx, prioidx);
>> *prio = prioidx;
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> This is still racy.
>
> Please do this before the
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prioidx_map_lock, flags);
>
Thanks Eric,you are right
I will fix and resent it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix panic in netprio_cgroup
2012-07-05 8:58 ` David Miller
@ 2012-07-05 9:15 ` Gao feng
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gao feng @ 2012-07-05 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Miller; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, nhorman, tj, lizefan
于 2012年07月05日 16:58, David Miller 写道:
>
> Why did you post this twice?
Sorry to confuse you, there are something wrong with my git sendmail config.
I sent the first patch but I can't find it in the maillist,so I
sent it again.
>
> Is there a difference between the first patch and the second
> one you posted? If so, what is that difference?
there isn't a difference between them.
Sorry again.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-05 9:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-07-05 8:31 [PATCH] cgroup: fix panic in netprio_cgroup Gao feng
2012-07-05 8:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-05 9:10 ` Gao feng
2012-07-05 8:58 ` David Miller
2012-07-05 9:15 ` Gao feng
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox