| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Code to initialize the conf structure while gathering the configuration
of the device was missing.
Fixes: 571912c69f0e ("net: UDP tunnel encapsulation module for tunnelling different protocols like MPLS, IP, NSH etc.")
Signed-off-by: Martin <martin.varghese@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
The remove function does not destroy all
BM Pools when per cpu pool is active.
When reloading the mvpp2 as a module the BM Pools
are still active in hardware and due to the bug
have twice the size now old + new.
This eventually leads to a kernel crash.
v2:
* add Fixes tag
Fixes: 7d04b0b13b11 ("mvpp2: percpu buffers")
Signed-off-by: Sven Auhagen <sven.auhagen@voleatech.de>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
Back in 2013, we made a change that broke fast retransmit
for non SACK flows.
Indeed, for these flows, a sender needs to receive three duplicate
ACK before starting fast retransmit. Sending ACK with different
receive window do not count.
Even if enabling SACK is strongly recommended these days,
there still are some cases where it has to be disabled.
Not increasing the window seems better than having to
rely on RTO.
After the fix, following packetdrill test gives :
// Initialize connection
0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
+0 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
+0 bind(3, ..., ...) = 0
+0 listen(3, 1) = 0
+0 < S 0:0(0) win 32792 <mss 1000,nop,wscale 7>
+0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 8>
+0 < . 1:1(0) ack 1 win 514
+0 accept(3, ..., ...) = 4
+0 < . 1:1001(1000) ack 1 win 514
// Quick ack
+0 > . 1:1(0) ack 1001 win 264
+0 < . 2001:3001(1000) ack 1 win 514
// DUPACK : Normally we should not change the window
+0 > . 1:1(0) ack 1001 win 264
+0 < . 3001:4001(1000) ack 1 win 514
// DUPACK : Normally we should not change the window
+0 > . 1:1(0) ack 1001 win 264
+0 < . 4001:5001(1000) ack 1 win 514
// DUPACK : Normally we should not change the window
+0 > . 1:1(0) ack 1001 win 264
+0 < . 1001:2001(1000) ack 1 win 514
// Hole is repaired.
+0 > . 1:1(0) ack 5001 win 272
Fixes: 4e4f1fc22681 ("tcp: properly increase rcv_ssthresh for ofo packets")
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Reported-by: Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd
Pull MFD fix from Lee Jones:
"Fix NULL pointer dereference in mt6360 driver"
* tag 'mfd-fixes-5.8' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd:
mfd: mt6360: Fix register driver NULL pointer by adding driver name
|
|
afs_vnode_commit_status() is only ever called if op->error is 0, so remove
the op->error checks from the function.
Fixes: e49c7b2f6de7 ("afs: Build an abstraction around an "operation" concept")
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
|
|
afs_check_for_remote_deletion() checks to see if error ENOENT is returned
by the server in response to an operation and, if so, marks the primary
vnode as having been deleted as the FID is no longer valid.
However, it's being called from the operation success functions, where no
abort has happened - and if an inline abort is recorded, it's handled by
afs_vnode_commit_status().
Fix this by actually calling the operation aborted method if provided and
having that point to afs_check_for_remote_deletion().
Fixes: e49c7b2f6de7 ("afs: Build an abstraction around an "operation" concept")
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
|
|
Remove afs_operation::abort_code as it's read but never set. Use
ac.abort_code instead.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
|
|
Fix yfs_fs_fetch_status() to honour the vnode selector in
op->fetch_status.which as does afs_fs_fetch_status() that allows
afs_do_lookup() to use this as an alternative to the InlineBulkStatus RPC
call if not implemented by the server.
This doesn't matter in the current code as YFS servers always implement
InlineBulkStatus, but a subsequent will call it on YFS servers too in some
circumstances.
Fixes: e49c7b2f6de7 ("afs: Build an abstraction around an "operation" concept")
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
|
|
Remove yfs_fs_fetch_file_status() as it's no longer used.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
|
|
Memset on the pointer right after malloc can cause a NULL pointer
deference if it failed to allocate memory. A simple fix is to
replace malloc()/memset() pair with a simple call to calloc().
Fixes: 0fca931a6f21 ("samples/bpf: program demonstrating access to xdp_rxq_info")
Signed-off-by: Gaurav Singh <gaurav1086@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
|
|
The driver name was accidentally removed when .probe() by was replaced
by .probe_new() during an early patch review.
[ 121.243012] EAX: c2a8bc64 EBX: 00000000 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
[ 121.243012] ESI: c2a8bc79 EDI: 00000000 EBP: e54bdea8 ESP: e54bdea0
[ 121.243012] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068 EFLAGS: 00010286
[ 121.243012] CR0: 80050033 CR2: 00000000 CR3: 02ec3000 CR4: 000006b0
[ 121.243012] Call Trace:
[ 121.243012] kset_find_obj+0x3d/0xc0
[ 121.243012] driver_find+0x16/0x40
[ 121.243012] driver_register+0x49/0x100
[ 121.243012] ? i2c_for_each_dev+0x39/0x50
[ 121.243012] ? __process_new_adapter+0x20/0x20
[ 121.243012] ? cht_wc_driver_init+0x11/0x11
[ 121.243012] i2c_register_driver+0x30/0x80
[ 121.243012] ? intel_lpss_pci_driver_init+0x16/0x16
[ 121.243012] mt6360_pmu_driver_init+0xf/0x11
[ 121.243012] do_one_initcall+0x33/0x1a0
[ 121.243012] ? parse_args+0x1eb/0x3d0
[ 121.243012] ? __might_sleep+0x31/0x90
[ 121.243012] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x10a/0x17f
[ 121.243012] kernel_init_freeable+0x12c/0x17f
[ 121.243012] ? rest_init+0x110/0x110
[ 121.243012] kernel_init+0xb/0x100
[ 121.243012] ? schedule_tail_wrapper+0x9/0xc
[ 121.243012] ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24
[ 121.243012] Modules linked in:
[ 121.243012] CR2: 0000000000000000
[ 121.243012] random: get_random_bytes called from init_oops_id+0x3a/0x40 with crng_init=0
[ 121.243012] ---[ end trace 38a803400f1a2bee ]---
[ 121.243012] EIP: strcmp+0x11/0x30
Fixes: 7edd363421dab ("mfd: Add support for PMIC MT6360")
Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <gene_chen@richtek.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@kernel.org>
[Lee: Taking the opportunity to fix the compatible string too 's/_/-/']
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
