Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[1\/1\]\s+xfrm\:\s+skb_cow_data\s+does\s+not\s+set\s+proper\s+owner\s+for\s+new\s+skbs\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[1\/1\]\s+xfrm\:\s+skb_cow_data\s+does\s+not\s+set\s+proper\s+owner\s+for\s+new\s+skbs\.\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. [1/1] xfrm: skb_cow_data() does not set proper owner for new skbs. (score: 1): Author: xel Reinhold <axel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:48:35 +0400; It looks like skb_cow_data() does not set proper owner for newly created skb. If we have several fragments for skb and some of them are shared(?) or cloned (like in async IPsec) there might be a situ; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00530.html (9,655 bytes)
2. Re: [1/1] xfrm: skb_cow_data() does not set proper owner for new skbs. (score: 1): Author: s Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 18:01:09 +1000; Yes you're absolutely right. Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> In fact you've uncovered a couple of bugs elsewhere too. IPv4's ip_push_pending_frames attributes all the data to the f; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00536.html (10,337 bytes)
3. Re: [1/1] xfrm: skb_cow_data() does not set proper owner for new skbs. (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:18:46 -0700 (PDT); I'm %99 sure this one is on purpose. I'll have to dig into the archives and source repo history to get the details though.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00554.html (9,699 bytes)
4. [1/1] xfrm: skb_cow_data() does not set proper owner for new skbs. (score: 1): Author: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:48:35 +0400; It looks like skb_cow_data() does not set proper owner for newly created skb. If we have several fragments for skb and some of them are shared(?) or cloned (like in async IPsec) there might be a situ; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01819.html (9,655 bytes)
5. Re: [1/1] xfrm: skb_cow_data() does not set proper owner for new skbs. (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 18:01:09 +1000; Yes you're absolutely right. Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> In fact you've uncovered a couple of bugs elsewhere too. IPv4's ip_push_pending_frames attributes all the data to the f; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01825.html (10,411 bytes)
6. Re: [1/1] xfrm: skb_cow_data() does not set proper owner for new skbs. (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:18:46 -0700 (PDT); I'm %99 sure this one is on purpose. I'll have to dig into the archives and source repo history to get the details though.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01843.html (9,778 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]