jamal writes:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Milam, Chad wrote:
>
> > At the end of the day, my patch was not trying to avoid GC, or eliminate
> > it. It was just
> > there to keep the box from going completely dead...
>
> I dont think yourt patch guarantees this (you are nuking routes that
> may still be actively used) -- i think you may have been lucky so far.
> Regardless, this seems to be an interesting case of fixing what appears
> to be a application bug with a kernel patch. Its amazing what you can do
> when you have source.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
> PS:- the fact that you are running 2.2 is useful information that
> you left out.
>
the fact that i am using 2.2 is stated in the subject line. i did neglect to
put it explicitly put it in the message (sorry). it is, however, also
diff/patch file.
I also do not think that nuking valid routes in the cache will produce any
major issues, other than slowing things down for a few seconds. the cache
is just the cache, not the real route table. and yes, it pretty much
guarantees the route cache will be purged, therefore avoiding a reboot and
avoiding a quickly repeated overflow...
and yes, having the source makes things much easier. :)
chad
|