Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\.6\]\:\s+keep\s+fragment\s+queues\s+private\s+to\s+each\s+user\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\.6\]\:\s+keep\s+fragment\s+queues\s+private\s+to\s+each\s+user\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. using eth_change_mtu (score: 1): Author: xxx; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:57:47 +0100; ing old libnet version. That functio; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01103.html (22,126 bytes)
2. using eth_change_mtu (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:57:03 +1100; header bytes??? Also can you tellme; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01107.html (9,257 bytes)
3. Re: skb_checksum_help (score: 1): Author:; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:41:04 +0100; frag_list skb's, we forgot to clea; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01111.html (9,121 bytes)
4. y leak in 2.6.11-rc1? (score: 1): Author: graf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:47:28 +1100; the box will fall over due to "dst c; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01115.html (9,164 bytes)
5. (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:41:58 -0800; river writers have their drivers in; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01133.html (8,874 bytes)
6. very slow (score: 1): Author: d Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:30:56 +0100; e (in)famous ethtool vs autonegotiation issue. If you do ethtool -s eth0 autoneg off speed 10 duplex half I think it will probably work. The behavior you're describing ap; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01182.html (23,227 bytes)
7. [ATM] Fix flags type in lec_arp_expire_vcc (score: 1): Author: <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:29:55 -0800; to define; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg01194.html (8,767 bytes)
8. [PATCH 2.6]: keep fragment queues private to each user (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:57:47 +0100; Hi Dave, This patch keeps fragment queues private to each ip_defrag user to avoid skbs jumping between different callers. It shouldn't change any wanted behaviour, the only questionable one was ip_ca; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02593.html (22,088 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH 2.6]: keep fragment queues private to each user (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:57:03 +1100; Patch looks good. However, I think this is still not enough. What about fragments that come from different interfaces? Fragments with different security paths? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02597.html (9,326 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH 2.6]: keep fragment queues private to each user (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:41:04 +0100; However, I think this is still not enough. What about fragments that come from different interfaces? Fragments with different security paths? Fragments with different security paths are indeed a pro; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02601.html (9,126 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH 2.6]: keep fragment queues private to each user (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:47:28 +1100; Well consider an IPIP interface over a transport mode ESP SA... -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02605.html (9,278 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH 2.6]: keep fragment queues private to each user (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:41:58 -0800; Please fix the CONFIG_SMP build. You use some variable "user" in ip_frag_intern(), yet don't add this as an argument or anything like that. The "user" use you added is protected by CONFIG_SMP, so my; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02623.html (8,922 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH 2.6]: keep fragment queues private to each user (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:30:56 +0100; This patch keeps fragment queues private to each ip_defrag user to avoid skbs jumping between different callers. It shouldn't change any wanted behaviour, the only questionable one was ip_call_ra_ch; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02672.html (23,277 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH 2.6]: keep fragment queues private to each user (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:29:55 -0800; Thanks. I'll apply this and the 2.4.x variant. Although I have a theoretical objection to this thing. It is extending a namespace we have no such control over. The namespace is saddr/daddr/ID. But pe; /archives/netdev/2005-01/msg02684.html (8,876 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]