| Message ID | 20090328032332.GA22353@bombadil.infradead.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:23:32PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:47:54PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > > I don't know if the right fix is to return like this patch does or to set > > > skb = rxptr->rx_skb_ptr again. > > > > > > > Ick... that's a good catch. I'll have to think about this. > > > > I think this is alright, it at least keeps the original intent of the > code. I don't pretend to have figured it out yet though. > > I'll stare more at this Monday... > > I guess the real question is does anyone still have one of these > cards. I don't think I do, just the proper tulips. :/ Ditto. AFAIK, I only have tulips. Patch below looks right to me. Clobbering the skb is certainly wrong. Acked-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> thanks, grant > diff --git a/drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c b/drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c > index 030e02e..9264a58 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c > +++ b/drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c > @@ -840,13 +840,15 @@ static void uli526x_rx_packet(struct net_device *dev, struct uli526x_board_info > > if ( !(rdes0 & 0x8000) || > ((db->cr6_data & CR6_PM) && (rxlen>6)) ) { > + struct sk_buff *new_skb = NULL; > + > skb = rxptr->rx_skb_ptr; > > /* Good packet, send to upper layer */ > /* Shorst packet used new SKB */ > - if ( (rxlen < RX_COPY_SIZE) && > - ( (skb = dev_alloc_skb(rxlen + 2) ) > - != NULL) ) { > + if ((rxlen < RX_COPY_SIZE) && > + ((new_skb = dev_alloc_skb(rxlen + 2) != NULL))) { > + skb = new_skb; > /* size less than COPY_SIZE, allocate a rxlen SKB */ > skb_reserve(skb, 2); /* 16byte align */ > memcpy(skb_put(skb, rxlen), -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:35:13 -0600 > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:23:32PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:47:54PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > > > I don't know if the right fix is to return like this patch does or to set > > > > skb = rxptr->rx_skb_ptr again. > > > > > > > > > > Ick... that's a good catch. I'll have to think about this. > > > > > > > I think this is alright, it at least keeps the original intent of the > > code. I don't pretend to have figured it out yet though. > > > > I'll stare more at this Monday... > > > > I guess the real question is does anyone still have one of these > > cards. I don't think I do, just the proper tulips. :/ > > Ditto. AFAIK, I only have tulips. > > Patch below looks right to me. Clobbering the skb is certainly wrong. > > Acked-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> It looks correct to me, can we get a proper submission with signoffs etc.? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:59:31PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> > Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:35:13 -0600 > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:23:32PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:47:54PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > > > > I don't know if the right fix is to return like this patch does or to set > > > > > skb = rxptr->rx_skb_ptr again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ick... that's a good catch. I'll have to think about this. > > > > > > > > > > I think this is alright, it at least keeps the original intent of the > > > code. I don't pretend to have figured it out yet though. > > > > > > I'll stare more at this Monday... > > > > > > I guess the real question is does anyone still have one of these > > > cards. I don't think I do, just the proper tulips. :/ > > > > Ditto. AFAIK, I only have tulips. > > > > Patch below looks right to me. Clobbering the skb is certainly wrong. > > > > Acked-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> > > It looks correct to me, can we get a proper submission with > signoffs etc.? Dave, Is that something I have to do or the original submitter? Was the "Acked-by" appropriate for me to provide (as maintainer)? I can resubmit with Signed-off-by if that's what is expected. thanks, grant -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:45:05 -0600 > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:59:31PM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> >> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:35:13 -0600 >> >> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:23:32PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: >> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:47:54PM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: >> > > > > I don't know if the right fix is to return like this patch does or to set >> > > > > skb = rxptr->rx_skb_ptr again. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Ick... that's a good catch. I'll have to think about this. >> > > > >> > > >> > > I think this is alright, it at least keeps the original intent of the >> > > code. I don't pretend to have figured it out yet though. >> > > >> > > I'll stare more at this Monday... >> > > >> > > I guess the real question is does anyone still have one of these >> > > cards. I don't think I do, just the proper tulips. :/ >> > >> > Ditto. AFAIK, I only have tulips. >> > >> > Patch below looks right to me. Clobbering the skb is certainly wrong. >> > >> > Acked-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> >> >> It looks correct to me, can we get a proper submission with >> signoffs etc.? > > Dave, > Is that something I have to do or the original submitter? I would like the original submitted to do this. > Was the "Acked-by" appropriate for me to provide (as maintainer)? Yes, it is of course fine. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:59:31PM -0700, David Miller wrote: ... > > Patch below looks right to me. Clobbering the skb is certainly wrong. > > > > Acked-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> > > It looks correct to me, can we get a proper submission with > signoffs etc.? Dave, Looks like this patch was never resubmitted. Kyle, can you look at http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2009/03/27/117 and resubmit the code you had then with my "Acked-by" added please? Or if you don't want to touch it, let me know and I'll resurrect it. thanks, grant -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 00:15:40 -0700 > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:59:31PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > ... >> > Patch below looks right to me. Clobbering the skb is certainly wrong. >> > >> > Acked-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> >> >> It looks correct to me, can we get a proper submission with >> signoffs etc.? > > Dave, > Looks like this patch was never resubmitted. > > Kyle, can you look at http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2009/03/27/117 > and resubmit the code you had then with my "Acked-by" added please? > > Or if you don't want to touch it, let me know and I'll resurrect it. I got tired of waiting for this resubmission (a month and a half) and just applied the most recent version of the patch to net-2.6. It looked correct to me too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:21:25PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 00:15:40 -0700 > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:59:31PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > ... > >> > Patch below looks right to me. Clobbering the skb is certainly wrong. > >> > > >> > Acked-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> > >> > >> It looks correct to me, can we get a proper submission with > >> signoffs etc.? > > > > Dave, > > Looks like this patch was never resubmitted. > > > > Kyle, can you look at http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2009/03/27/117 > > and resubmit the code you had then with my "Acked-by" added please? > > > > Or if you don't want to touch it, let me know and I'll resurrect it. > > I got tired of waiting for this resubmission (a month and a half) and > just applied the most recent version of the patch to net-2.6. > > It looked correct to me too. Thank you! grant -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c b/drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c index 030e02e..9264a58 100644 --- a/drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c +++ b/drivers/net/tulip/uli526x.c @@ -840,13 +840,15 @@ static void uli526x_rx_packet(struct net_device *dev, struct uli526x_board_info if ( !(rdes0 & 0x8000) || ((db->cr6_data & CR6_PM) && (rxlen>6)) ) { + struct sk_buff *new_skb = NULL; + skb = rxptr->rx_skb_ptr; /* Good packet, send to upper layer */ /* Shorst packet used new SKB */ - if ( (rxlen < RX_COPY_SIZE) && - ( (skb = dev_alloc_skb(rxlen + 2) ) - != NULL) ) { + if ((rxlen < RX_COPY_SIZE) && + ((new_skb = dev_alloc_skb(rxlen + 2) != NULL))) { + skb = new_skb; /* size less than COPY_SIZE, allocate a rxlen SKB */ skb_reserve(skb, 2); /* 16byte align */ memcpy(skb_put(skb, rxlen),