RE: Submitting fixes for bugs: Re: tun device patch for IPv6

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Zabele, Stephen (US SSA)
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - 5:49 am

Thanks Max, much appreciated.

From what I understand, the copy_from_user is needed to protect kernels
that are running on multiprocessor hosts -- on some other work we were
doing a while back, we had left the copy out and were just using the
provided pointer directly to access information in the buffer -- and it
was causing intermittent kernel panics.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Krasnyanskiy [mailto:maxk@qualcomm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:56 PM
To: Zabele, Stephen (US SSA)
Cc: Natalie Protasevich; Andrew Morton; LKML
Subject: Re: Submitting fixes for bugs: Re: tun device patch for IPv6

Zabele, Stephen (US SSA) wrote:
as
IPv4
for
option"
the
coding

I guess the argument makes sense. And it's been submitted a few times
already. 
So if people insist :). The patch is not the best way to do it though. I
do 
not think we need an extra copy_from_user(). I'll either dig out an
original 
patch or cook up a new one and then push it upstream along a couple of
other 
TUN bug fixes.

Max




but
not
proper


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
RE: Submitting fixes for bugs: Re: tun device patch for IPv6, Zabele, Stephen (US SSA), (Wed Jun 4, 5:49 am)