From: Stephen Rothwell <hidden> Date: 2012-09-25 02:34:48
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in
net/ipv4/raw.c between commit ab43ed8b7490 ("ipv4: raw: fix icmp_filter
()") from the net tree and commit 5640f7685831 ("net: use a per task frag
allocator") from the net-next tree.
They are basically the same patch (for this file) except the net-next
version adds two pr_err() calls. I used the net-next version and can carry
the fix as necessary (no action is required).
I do wonder if this change belongs in the net-next patch?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden> Date: 2012-09-25 05:10:48
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:34 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in
net/ipv4/raw.c between commit ab43ed8b7490 ("ipv4: raw: fix icmp_filter
()") from the net tree and commit 5640f7685831 ("net: use a per task frag
allocator") from the net-next tree.
They are basically the same patch (for this file) except the net-next
version adds two pr_err() calls. I used the net-next version and can carry
the fix as necessary (no action is required).
I do wonder if this change belongs in the net-next patch?
Oops, my bad, net/ipv4/raw.c changes in 5640f7685831 ("net: use a per
task frag allocator") should not be there :
I accidentally left a debugging version of the patch I sent to fix the
icmp bug.
Sorry David for this, I am not sure how I can help on this ?
Oops, my bad, net/ipv4/raw.c changes in 5640f7685831 ("net: use a per
task frag allocator") should not be there :
I accidentally left a debugging version of the patch I sent to fix the
icmp bug.
Sorry David for this, I am not sure how I can help on this ?
The thing to do is send me a patch to revert the raw.c change from
net-next, right?
Oops, my bad, net/ipv4/raw.c changes in 5640f7685831 ("net: use a per
task frag allocator") should not be there :
I accidentally left a debugging version of the patch I sent to fix the
icmp bug.
Sorry David for this, I am not sure how I can help on this ?
The thing to do is send me a patch to revert the raw.c change from
net-next, right?
Sure, I'll do that after my breakfast and some coffee ;)
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden> Date: 2012-09-25 06:21:24
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Commit 5640f7685831 ("net: use a per task frag allocator")
accidentally contained an unrelated change to net/ipv4/raw.c,
later committed (without the pr_err() debugging bits) in
net tree as commit ab43ed8b749 (ipv4: raw: fix icmp_filter())
This patch reverts this glitch, noticed by Stephen Rothwell.
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
---
net/ipv4/raw.c | 19 +++++++------------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
@@ -131,23 +131,18 @@ found:*0-deliver*1-block*/-staticinticmp_filter(conststructsock*sk,conststructsk_buff*skb)+static__inline__inticmp_filter(structsock*sk,structsk_buff*skb){-structicmphdr_hdr;-conststructicmphdr*hdr;--pr_err("icmp_filter skb_transport_offset %d data-head %ld len %d/%d\n",-skb_transport_offset(skb),skb->data-skb->head,skb->len,skb->data_len);-hdr=skb_header_pointer(skb,skb_transport_offset(skb),-sizeof(_hdr),&_hdr);-pr_err("head %p data %p hdr %p type %d\n",skb->head,skb->data,hdr,hdr?hdr->type:-1);-if(!hdr)+inttype;++if(!pskb_may_pull(skb,sizeof(structicmphdr)))return1;-if(hdr->type<32){+type=icmp_hdr(skb)->type;+if(type<32){__u32data=raw_sk(sk)->filter.data;-return((1U<<hdr->type)&data)!=0;+return((1<<type)&data)!=0;}/* Do not block unknown ICMP types */
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Commit 5640f7685831 ("net: use a per task frag allocator")
accidentally contained an unrelated change to net/ipv4/raw.c,
later committed (without the pr_err() debugging bits) in
net tree as commit ab43ed8b749 (ipv4: raw: fix icmp_filter())
This patch reverts this glitch, noticed by Stephen Rothwell.
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>