[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:40:52 +1100
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, alexn@xxxxxxxxx, kas@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050130211150.464d1c62.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <41FD2043.3070303@xxxxxxxxx> <E1CvSuS-00056x-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050131.134559.125426676.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41FDBB78.2050403@xxxxxxxxx> <20050130211150.464d1c62.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:11:50PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:00:40 +0100
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
> Right, ipv6 netfilter cannot create this situation yet.

Not through netfilter but I'm not convinced that other paths
won't do this.

For instance, what about ipv6_frag_rcv -> esp6_input -> ... -> ip6_fragment?
That would seem to be a potential path for a non-NULL dst to survive
through to ip6_fragment, no?

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

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