3.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Paul Durrant <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit 1425c7a4e8d3d2eebf308bcbdc3fa3c1247686b4 ]

The BUG_ON to catch ring overflow in xenvif_rx_action() makes the assumption
that meta_slots_used == ring slots used. This is not necessarily the case
for GSO packets, because the non-prefix GSO protocol consumes one more ring
slot than meta-slot for the 'extra_info'. This patch changes the test to
actually check ring slots.

Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <[email protected]>
Cc: Ian Campbell <[email protected]>
Cc: Wei Liu <[email protected]>
Cc: Sander Eikelenboom <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c |    8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
+++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
@@ -482,6 +482,8 @@ static void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenv
 
        while ((skb = skb_dequeue(&vif->rx_queue)) != NULL) {
                RING_IDX max_slots_needed;
+               RING_IDX old_req_cons;
+               RING_IDX ring_slots_used;
                int i;
 
                /* We need a cheap worse case estimate for the number of
@@ -530,8 +532,12 @@ static void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenv
                        vif->rx_last_skb_slots = 0;
 
                sco = (struct skb_cb_overlay *)skb->cb;
+
+               old_req_cons = vif->rx.req_cons;
                sco->meta_slots_used = xenvif_gop_skb(skb, &npo);
-               BUG_ON(sco->meta_slots_used > max_slots_needed);
+               ring_slots_used = vif->rx.req_cons - old_req_cons;
+
+               BUG_ON(ring_slots_used > max_slots_needed);
 
                __skb_queue_tail(&rxq, skb);
        }


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to