| To: | yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1? |
| From: | Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:00:40 +0100 |
| Cc: | 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: | <20050131.134559.125426676.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <41FD2043.3070303@xxxxxxxxx> <E1CvSuS-00056x-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050131.134559.125426676.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050106 Debian/1.7.5-1 |
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / $B5HF#1QL@ wrote: In article <E1CvSuS-00056x-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:11:32 +1100), Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Ok, final decision: you are right :) conntrack also defragments locally generated packets before they hit ip_fragment. In this case the fragments have skb->dst set.Well caught. The same thing is needed for IPv6, right?(not yet confirmed, but) yes, please. 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. Regards Patrick |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.4.29, e100 and a WOL packet causes keventd going mad, Scott Feldman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: LLTX fix proposal, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |