[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140116092301.GF28205@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:23:01 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Andrew Vagin <avagin@...allels.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
netfilter@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vvs@...nvz.org,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Vasiliy Averin <vvs@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] netfilter: nf_conntrack: don't relase a conntrack
with non-zero refcnt
Andrew Vagin <avagin@...allels.com> wrote:
> > I think it would be nice if we could keep it that way.
> > If everything fails we could proably intoduce a 'larval' dummy list
> > similar to the one used by template conntracks?
>
> I'm not sure, that this is required. Could you elaborate when this can
> be useful?
You can dump the lists via ctnetlink. Its meant as a debugging aid in
case one suspects refcnt leaks.
Granted, in this situation there should be no leak since we put the newly
allocated entry in the error case.
> Now I see only overhead, because we need to take the nf_conntrack_lock
> lock to add conntrack in a list.
True. I don't have any preference, I guess I'd just do the insertion into the
unconfirmed list when we know we cannot track to keep the "unhashed"
bug trap in the destroy function.
Pablo, any preference?
--
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