[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120618.212721.2148947025741866390.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: Early TCP socket demux.
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:25:38 +0200
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 06:23 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 21:15 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:07:26 +0200
>> >
>> > > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 19:40 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> > >> You know you want it.
>> > >>
>> > >> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>> > >
>> > > Yeah, very good idea David ;)
>> > >
>> > > needs some polishing of course.
>> >
>> > Such as? IPv6 support?
>> >
>>
>> I was referring to socket leak in :
>>
>> + if (sk) {
>> + skb->sk = sk;
>> + skb->destructor = sock_edemux;
>> + if (sk->sk_state != TCP_TIME_WAIT) {
>> + struct dst_entry *dst = sk->sk_rx_dst;
>> + if (dst) {
>> + skb_dst_set_noref(skb, dst);
>> + err = 0;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>>
>>
>
> It's not a leak, but seems strange to keep it around if we dont use it
> yet.
How are we not using it? We use the cached SKB socket no matter what
happens.
Look at how inet hash lookup works.
The error tells the caller solely whether a route lookup is still
necessary.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists