| To: | mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] PPPOE can kfree SKB twice (was Re: kernel panic problem. (smp, iptables?)) |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Thu, 19 Jul 2001 21:27:05 +0400 (MSK DST) |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx, saai@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, prefect_@xxxxxxx, moritz@xxxxxxxxxxxx, egger@xxxxxxx, srwalter@xxxxxxxxx, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <sb6r8vdgkya.fsf@slug.watson.ibm.com> from "Michal Ostrowski" at Jul 19, 1 08:30:37 am |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello!
SOme short comment on the patch:
> - dev_queue_xmit(skb);
> + /* The skb we are to transmit may be a copy (see above). If
> + * this fails, then the caller is responsible for the original
> + * skb, otherwise we must free it. Also if this fails we must
> + * free the copy that we made.
> + */
> +
> + if (dev_queue_xmit(skb)<0) {
dev_queue_xmit _frees_ frame, not depending on return value.
Return value is not a criterium to assume anything.
> + if (old_skb) {
> + /* The skb we tried to send was a copy. We
> + * have to free it (the copy) and let the
> + * caller deal with the original one.
> + */
> + skb_unlink(skb);
So, do you pass to dev_queue_xmit some skb, which is on some list?
Not a good idea. Please, clone it and submit clone, if you need to hold
original in some list.
Alexey
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] PPPOE can kfree SKB twice (was Re: kernel panic problem. (smp, iptables?)), Michal Ostrowski |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] PPPOE can kfree SKB twice (was Re: kernel panic problem. (smp, iptables?)), Michal Ostrowski |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] PPPOE can kfree SKB twice (was Re: kernel panic problem. (smp, iptables?)), Michal Ostrowski |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] PPPOE can kfree SKB twice (was Re: kernel panic problem. (smp, iptables?)), Michal Ostrowski |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |