netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?

To: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?
From: Yasuyuki KOZAKAI <yasuyuki.kozakai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:42:52 +0900 (JST)
Cc: kaber@xxxxxxxxx, kozakai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, alexn@xxxxxxxxx, kas@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050131.141636.20664459.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
References: <20050131.134559.125426676.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <41FDBB78.2050403@trash.net> <20050131.141636.20664459.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,

From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:16:36 +0900 (JST)

> In article <41FDBB78.2050403@xxxxxxxxx> (at Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:00:40 +0100), 
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> says:
> 
> |We don't need this for IPv6 yet. Once we get nf_conntrack in we
> |might need this, but its IPv6 fragment handling is different from
> |ip_conntrack, I need to check first.
> 
> Ok. It would be better to have some comment but anyway...
> kozakai-san?

IMO, fix for nf_conntrack isn't needed yet. Because someone may change
IPv6 fragment handling in nf_conntrack.

Anyway, current nf_conntrack passes the original (not de-fragmented) skb to
IPv6 stack. nf_conntrack doesn't touch its dst.

Regards,
----------------------------------------
Yasuyuki KOZAKAI

Communication Platform Laboratory,
Corporate Research & Development Center,
Toshiba Corporation

yasuyuki.kozakai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>