| To: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent crash on ip_conntrack removal |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:57:08 -0700 |
| Cc: | dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, okir@xxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4132303C.2060807@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <412A8FB5.4080700@xxxxxxxxx> <OFE08A3DF5.09BCA1C4-ON88256EFA.00806C05-88256EFA.0080E98F@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040828231529.051a73cc.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4132303C.2060807@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:36:28 +0200 Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > David S. Miller wrote: > > >I think I agree with David now that I've read through this a few > >times. Can someone send me a patch which does this? > > > > > Attached. The first patch still crashed, we need to prevent new > fragments from getting queued after the queue is flushed until the > hook in unregistered. While we're doing this, is your patch similar to one of the two original ones that Olaf Kirch posted? I want to give him proper attribution, in whatever form is reasonable, that's all. > >Does 2.4.x have this problem too? I thought it didn't. > > > > > I'll have a look, but I think it does. Thanks a lot for helping out with this Patrick. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent crash on ip_conntrack removal, Patrick McHardy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent crash on ip_conntrack removal, Patrick McHardy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent crash on ip_conntrack removal, Patrick McHardy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Prevent crash on ip_conntrack removal, Patrick McHardy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |