netdev - Re: [PATCH] TCP: Replace __kfree_skb() with kfree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070126101838.GC1639@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:18:38 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Masayuki Nakagawa <nakagawa.msy@...s.nec.co.jp>,
	davem@...emloft.net, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, mhuth@...sta.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP: Replace __kfree_skb() with kfree_skb()

On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 08:52:51PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:49:50AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > 
> > How do we know about those improper deals? 
> > I understand there should be no other users here
> > if it's __kfree_skb now. So I mean to test and warn
> > before kfree_skb for some debugging time.
> 
> We only need to do that if there is a legitimate reason to use
> __kfree_skb.  Which there was when this code was first written
> since kfree_skb had an unconditional atomic op back then.
> 
> Now that it's a conditinoal atomic op __kfree_skb is no longer
> necessary.

I don't mean it's necessary. I mean now skb is freed
unconditionally and after this patch, if there is some
error in counting, skb will stay. I thought Masayuki
wrote about such possibility, but if I missed his
point, then the rest is really O.K.

Cheers,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html