[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fwd: [2.6] ethertap and af_inet.c assertion failures

To: Tommy Christensen <tommy.christensen@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [2.6] ethertap and af_inet.c assertion failures
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 05:30:23 +1100
Cc: simon.roscic@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <41E942AF.3030202@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <E1Cpo1q-0007lI-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41E942AF.3030202@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 05:19:59PM +0100, Tommy Christensen wrote:
> Shouldn't there be a check for skb_shared as well? Or are the
> callers of netlink_unicast/broadcast supposed to avoid this.

Had anyone been using shared skb's here before they would've got into
trouble a long time ago with calls such as skb_orphan in the path.

Even if they managed to do that and not notice then the pskb_expand_head
call in netlink_trim would've likely caught it as well.

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

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