Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:23:09 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Karim Fodil-Lemelin <kfodil-lemelin@xiplink.com> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: m_move_pkthdr leaves m_nextpkt 'dangling' Message-ID: <CAJ-VmomhJVbZO-G1Ki2sg5Wxrn6xL-zYU1ggoEKS-qPGuocG2g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <59567148.1020902@xiplink.com> References: <59567148.1020902@xiplink.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30 June 2017 at 08:42, Karim Fodil-Lemelin
<kfodil-lemelin@xiplink.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As many of you know, when dealing with IP fragments the kernel will build a
> list of packets (fragments) chained together through the m_nextpkt pointer.
> This is all good until someone tries to do a M_PREPEND on one of the packet
> in the chain and the M_PREPEND has to create an extra mbuf to prepend at the
> beginning of the chain.
>
> When doing so m_move_pkthdr is called to copy the current PKTHDR fields
> (tags and flags) to the mbuf that was prepended. The function also does:
>
> to->m_pkthdr = from->m_pkthdr;
>
> This, for the case I am interested in, essentially leaves the 'from' mbuf
> with a dangling pointer m_nextpkt pointing to the next fragment. While this
> is mostly harmless because only mbufs of pkthdr types are supposed to have
> m_nextpkt it triggers some panics when running with INVARIANTS in NetGraph
> (see ng_base.c :: CHECK_DATA_MBUF(m)):
>
> ...
> if (n->m_nextpkt != NULL) \
> panic("%s: m_nextpkt", __func__); \
> }
> ...
>
> So I would like to propose the following patch:
>
> @@ -442,10 +442,11 @@ m_move_pkthdr(struct mbuf *to, struct mbuf *from)
> if ((to->m_flags & M_EXT) == 0)
> to->m_data = to->m_pktdat;
> to->m_pkthdr = from->m_pkthdr; /* especially tags */
> SLIST_INIT(&from->m_pkthdr.tags); /* purge tags from src */
> from->m_flags &= ~M_PKTHDR;
> + from->m_nextpkt = NULL;
> }
>
> It will reset the m_nextpkt so we don't have two mbufs pointing to the same
> next packet. This is fairly harmless and solves a problem for us here at
> XipLink.
This seems like a no-brainer. :-) Any objections?
-adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmomhJVbZO-G1Ki2sg5Wxrn6xL-zYU1ggoEKS-qPGuocG2g>