Messages in this thread | | | From | Sylvain Munaut <> | Date | Sun, 21 Aug 2016 21:36:24 +0200 | Subject | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xenbus: don't BUG() on user mode induced condition |
| |
Hi,
> --- 4.7-rc6-xen.orig/drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c > +++ 4.7-rc6-xen/drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c > @@ -316,11 +316,18 @@ static int xenbus_write_transaction(unsi > rc = -ENOMEM; > goto out; > } > + } else { > + list_for_each_entry(trans, &u->transactions, list) > + if (trans->handle.id == u->u.msg.tx_id) > + break; > + if (&trans->list == &u->transactions) > + return -ESRCH; > }
Shouldn't there be some tolerance in there in case the tx_id is zero ? (i.e. no transaction).
I'm trying to find out why just doing "xenstore-ls" doesn't work on my 4.4.20 kernel and when stracing it, I see it doing :
access("/dev/xen/xenbus", F_OK) = 0 stat("/dev/xen/xenbus", {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0600, st_rdev=makedev(10, 60), ...}) = 0 open("/dev/xen/xenbus", O_RDWR) = 3 brk(0) = 0x18e4000 brk(0x1905000) = 0x1905000 rt_sigaction(SIGPIPE, {SIG_IGN, [], SA_RESTORER, 0x7fe4dd98e0e0}, {SIG_DFL, [], 0}, 8) = 0 write(3, "\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\2\0\0\0", 16) = 16 write(3, "/\0", 2) = -1 ESRCH (No such process)
So either what xenstore-ls does is invalid, or that condition requiring a transaction is too strict.
Or am I missing something here ?
Cheers,
Sylvain Munaut
| |