David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we fail to reserve enough headroom for the case
buf[0] == PPP_ALLSTATIONS and buf[1] != PPP_UI.
Can you try this patch please?
Any confirmation of this fix yet?
FWIW the fix definitely looks correct (the bug has been there for
years at
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note: Ingo also reports what looks like a memory corruption due to the
6b6b6b6b pattern on presumably the same box.
The 6b6b6b6b pattern is POISON_FREE, implying some kind of slab
misuse, most likely a use-after-free, although possibly just due
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 08:21:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note: Ingo also reports what looks like a memory corruption due to the
6b6b6b6b pattern on presumably the same box.
The 6b6b6b6b pattern is POISON_FREE, implying some kind of slab
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 08:33:39PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Thomas Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:34:36 +0100
Fixes a typo which caused fib_props[] to have the wrong size
and makes sure the value used to index the array which is
provided by userspace via netlink
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 04:26:55PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 08:33:39PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Thomas Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:34:36 +0100
Fixes a typo which caused fib_props[] to have the wrong size
and makes sure the value
David Miller writes:
It seems we fail to reserve enough headroom for the case
buf[0] == PPP_ALLSTATIONS and buf[1] != PPP_UI.
Can you try this patch please?
Any confirmation of this fix yet?
Indeed, ppp_async doesn't handle that case correctly.
RFC 1662 says:
The Control
From: Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:49:28 +1000
I didn't see the patch (the message that this is a reply to is the
first one that I have seen in this thread), so I can't comment on it.
Here is Patrick McHardy's patch:
diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp_async.c
David Miller wrote:
From: Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:49:28 +1000
I didn't see the patch (the message that this is a reply to is the
first one that I have seen in this thread), so I can't comment on it.
Here is Patrick McHardy's patch:
[..]
I haven't
On Apr 13, 2007, at 09:53, David Hollis wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 16:42 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:03:56 +0200
Lennert Buytenhek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There may not be as much, but there definitely are still cases where
there are devices that may have one of
Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
nothing seems to be using this, it's labelled OBSOLETE in the
Kconfig file, and there is not a single test for CONFIG_SHAPER
anywhere in the tree. time to die.
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 17:41 +1000, CaT wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:13:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:43:19 +1000 CaT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I take minute by minute snapshots of network traffic by sampling
/proc/net/dev and most of the time everything
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
On 04/15/2007 01:30 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper.
Why are all your messages getting a {Spam?} subject prefix?
i have no idea, that's a recent development. is that happening with
anyone else?
rday
--
On 4/15/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apart from the merits of removing this which I can't comment on, I
thought the usual procedure was to place a removal in
On 04/15/2007 01:38 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
Why are all your messages getting a {Spam?} subject prefix?
i have no idea, that's a recent development. is that happening with
anyone else?
Not that I've seen. Your last message/thread were the others:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/14/89
(i'm betting that the mail server i use back in canada is going to tag
this yet again with {Spam?} since i'm in california at the moment
and i'll just bet it's freaking out seeing stuff coming from a totally
unknown IP address. i've already sent an email to the admins about
this. sorry.)
On
On 04/15/2007 01:30 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
Remove the obsolete code for the traffic shaper.
Why are all your messages getting a {Spam?} subject prefix?
Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
David Miller writes:
Here is Patrick McHardy's patch:
So this doesn't change process_input_packet(), which treats the case
where the first byte is 0xff (PPP_ALLSTATIONS) but the second byte is
0x03 (PPP_UI) as indicating a packet with a PPP protocol number of
0xff. Arguably that's wrong since
I wrote:
So this doesn't change process_input_packet(), which treats the case
where the first byte is 0xff (PPP_ALLSTATIONS) but the second byte is
0x03 (PPP_UI) as indicating a packet with a PPP protocol number of
I meant the second byte is NOT 0x03, of course.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from
On 4/15/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in fact, according to this:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/13/139
that notice was put in the feature removal file well over a year ago,
during 2.6.15. so that would seem to be more than adequate time for
everyone to prepare for it. but it
19 matches
Mail list logo
