<div dir="ltr">No. there is no need any more. An incremental patch is attached that removes all the tbl->mask_list checks. I have also rolled the last 3 patches in to a single one in case it is useful.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jesse Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jesse@nicira.com" target="_blank">jesse@nicira.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Do we need any of the tests for tbl->mask_list at this point if we<br>
always allocate a list head?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Andy Zhou <<a href="mailto:azhou@nicira.com">azhou@nicira.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> O.K. How about the attached incremental patch?<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jesse Gross <<a href="mailto:jesse@nicira.com">jesse@nicira.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Andy Zhou <<a href="mailto:azhou@nicira.com">azhou@nicira.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > When flow table is copied, the mask list from the old table<br>
>> > is not properly copied into the new table. The corrupted mask<br>
>> > list in the new table will lead to kernel crash. This patch<br>
>> > fixes this bug.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Bug #18110<br>
>> > Reported-by: Justin Pettit <<a href="mailto:jpettit@nicira.com">jpettit@nicira.com</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Can we just allocate the mask list head when we create v1 of the<br>
>> table? I think that would eliminate a lot of conditions and also allow<br>
>> us to return -ENOMEM up front rather than silent failing later on.<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>