On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 07:56:34AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 13:45 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > err = tp->ops->change(tp, cl, t->tcm_handle, tca, &fh);
> > > > > - if (err == 0)
> > > > > + if (err == 0) {
> > > > > + if (n->nlmsg_type == RTM_NEWTFILTER &&
> > > > > + (n->nlmsg_flags&NLM_F_CREATE)) {
> >
> > Since "tc filter replace" uses this type and flag too without creating
> > tp, this check is not enough. I guess we could simply use a variable
> > like tp_created etc.
>
> It will be superfluos.
> tp_created is the check
> n->nlmsg_type == RTM_NEWTFILTER && n->nlmsg_flags&NLM_F_CREATE
> replace will be
> n->nlmsg_type == RTM_NEWTFILTER && n->nlmsg_flags & NLM_F_EXCL
Hmm... Probably I miss something, but I've just seen this prink during
tc filter replace with:
err = tp->ops->change();
if (n->nlmsg_type == RTM_NEWTFILTER && (n->nlmsg_flags&NLM_F_CREATE))
printk(...);
>
> > Anyway, changing this place looks tricky to me,
> > so maybe it would be safer to do a separate cls_cgroup fix just for
> > -stable, and this one patch for -next only?
>
> I think they are two separate issues.
> The fact that we dont destroy an allocated tp on failure is an issue
> regardless of what cls_group does. In the case of Minoru's issue
> it is because he is misconfiguring cls_group.
Sure, but we don't want people to get oops in such a case, I guess.
Cheers,
Jarek P.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
