On 10/31/2014 11:36 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 16:23 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
commit 0b725a2ca61bedc33a2a63d0451d528b268cf975
net: Remove ndo_xmit_flush netdev operation, use signalling instead.
added code that looks at skb-xmit_more after the skb has
been put
On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 14:07 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
Since they are called before the possible free_old_xmit_skbs(), skb
won't get freed at this time.
Oh right, I forgot there is no completion handler yet, timer based or
whatever.
Thanks.
___
On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 16:23 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
commit 0b725a2ca61bedc33a2a63d0451d528b268cf975
net: Remove ndo_xmit_flush netdev operation, use signalling instead.
added code that looks at skb-xmit_more after the skb has
been put in TX VQ. Since some paths process the ring
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 04:47:27PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:23:28 +0300
You used __netif_subqueue_stopped but that seems to use
a slightly more expensive test_bit internally.
More expensive in what sense? It should be
commit 0b725a2ca61bedc33a2a63d0451d528b268cf975
net: Remove ndo_xmit_flush netdev operation, use signalling instead.
added code that looks at skb-xmit_more after the skb has
been put in TX VQ. Since some paths process the ring and free the skb
immediately, this can cause use after free.
Fix
From: Michael S. Tsirkin
commit 0b725a2ca61bedc33a2a63d0451d528b268cf975
net: Remove ndo_xmit_flush netdev operation, use signalling instead.
added code that looks at skb-xmit_more after the skb has
been put in TX VQ. Since some paths process the ring and free the skb
immediately, this
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 01:24:57PM +, David Laight wrote:
From: Michael S. Tsirkin
commit 0b725a2ca61bedc33a2a63d0451d528b268cf975
net: Remove ndo_xmit_flush netdev operation, use signalling instead.
added code that looks at skb-xmit_more after the skb has
been put in TX VQ.
From: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:23:28 +0300
You used __netif_subqueue_stopped but that seems to use
a slightly more expensive test_bit internally.
More expensive in what sense? It should be roughly the same
as x y sans the volatile.
Anyways I'm ambivalent
