Al,
Thank you for the response.
Regards,
Chris
On 9/14/07, Stephens, Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> The null check was removed in TIPC 1.7.4 as part of a code optimization
> effort. I thought I could get rid of the check by reworking the socket
> create code to render the check unnecessary. Unfortunately, I've recently
> discovered that a socket can also be created by the higher level Linux
> socket accept() routine, and may (in some error path cases) be passed to
> TIPC's close code without first going through TIPC's create routine. Hence,
> the check turns out to be necessary after all.
>
> I'll be releasing a fix for this problem in TIPC 1.7.5 -- hopefully next
> week. (The release will also contain a few other fixes.) In the meantime,
> the change you made to restore the missing check is the proper thing to do
> as a workaround.
>
> I now realize that I should have posted my discovery of this bug to the
> TIPC mailing list as soon as I discovered it, so as to have saved you the
> trouble of tracking down the cause of the problem yourself. My only excuse
> is that this seems to be the first time that an easily
> reproduceable operation-affecting bug has appeared in the TIPC 1.7product,
> and the need for such a posting has never arisen. Now that it has,
> I'll know what to do if similar issues arise in the future.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to report the problem.
>
> Regards,
> Al
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Chris Ramstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2007 4:03 PM
> *To:* Stephens, Allan
> *Cc:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Subject:* NULL pointer guard removed in TIPC 1.7.4tipc_socket.cpp:release()
>
> Hi Allan,
>
> Rich Lopez is a colleague of mine, and he suggested I shoot you an email
> to see if you have any insight / history on the following change. We were
> experiencing a null pointer dereference in the kernel, which terminated our
> running application. I noticed that in 1.7.3 tipc_socket.cpp / release(),
> a null pointer guard existed to check that sock->sk was not NULL (and
> immediately return). As soon as I put the check back in, our problem went
> away, however I assume it was removed for good reason.
>
> Do you have any thoughts on this issue? If needed, I can recreate and
> send logs, or try to write a test program that exhibits the same behavior
>
> Regards,
> Chris Ramstad
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
tipc-discussion mailing list
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
