Linux Ethernet Bridging - Apr 2007 - [Bridge] Re: [RESEND][PATCH] ebtables: clean up vmalloc usage in net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c

An earlier variant of your patch was applied already, included below.
You'll need to submit the newer parts relative to the current tree.

diff-tree 7ad4d2f6901437ba4717a26d395a73ea362d25c6 (from
b8282dcf0417bbc8a0786c129fdff9cc768f8f3c)
Author: Jayachandran C <c.jayachandran@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue Apr 11 17:25:38 2006 -0700

    [BRIDGE] ebtables: fix allocation in net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c
    
    Allocate an array of 'struct ebt_chainstack *', the current code
allocates
    array of 'struct ebt_chainstack'.
    
    akpm: converted to use the
    
    	foo = alloc(sizeof(*foo))
    
    form.  Which would have prevented this from happening in the first place.
    
    akpm: also removed unneeded typecast.
    
    akpm: what on earth is this code doing anyway?  cpu_possible_map can be
    sparse..
    
    Signed-off-by: Jayachandran C. <c.jayachandran@gmail.com>
    Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
    Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

diff --git a/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c b/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c
index 66bd932..84b9af7 100644
--- a/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c
+++ b/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c
@@ -824,9 +824,9 @@ static int translate_table(struct ebt_re
 	if (udc_cnt) {
 		/* this will get free'd in do_replace()/ebt_register_table()
 		   if an error occurs */
-		newinfo->chainstack = (struct ebt_chainstack **)
-		   vmalloc((highest_possible_processor_id()+1) 
-				   		* sizeof(struct ebt_chainstack));
+		newinfo->chainstack +			vmalloc((highest_possible_processor_id()+1)
+				   	* sizeof(*(newinfo->chainstack)));
 		if (!newinfo->chainstack)
 			return -ENOMEM;
 		for_each_possible_cpu(i) {

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:59:25 -0700
> "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> >
> > An earlier variant of your patch was applied already, included below.
> > You'll need to submit the newer parts relative to the current
tree.
> 
> This is a similar-but-different patch.  It applies OK.
> 
> I reviewed it (mostly - it's somewhat non-trivial to do this) and
queued it
> up and was planning on sending it to you for post-2.6.17.
It's at least fixing a few bugs, and the parts which are cleanups
undoubtedly should prevent bugs in the future, so I think we
should consider it for 2.6.17 right?

"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
wrote:
>
> An earlier variant of your patch was applied already, included below.
> You'll need to submit the newer parts relative to the current tree.
This is a similar-but-different patch.  It applies OK.

I reviewed it (mostly - it's somewhat non-trivial to do this) and queued it
up and was planning on sending it to you for post-2.6.17.