[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070418091418.GA7117@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:14:18 +0400
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...nvz.org, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [NETLINK] Don't attach callback to a going-away netlink socket
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:03:56PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov (xemul@...ru) wrote:
> > Yes, you are right, that it will not be freed in netlink_release(),
> > but it will be freed in netlink_dump() after it is processed (in no-error
> > path only though).
> >
>
> But error path will leak it. On success path we would have
> a leaked packet in sk_write_queue, since we did't see it in
> skb_queue_purge() while doing netlink_release().
>
> Of course we can place the struts in code to handle the case
> when we have a released socket with the attached callback, but
> it is more correct (IMHO) not to allow to attach the callbacks
> to dead sockets.
That is why I've asked why such approach is used but not freeing
callback in errror (well, no-dump name is better to describe that path)
path, and more generally, why callback is attached, but not freed in the
function, but instead is freed next time dump started.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists