[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1389339179.31367.98.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 23:32:59 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc: Bob Falken <NetFestivalHaveFun@....com>,
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kaber@...sh.net, tgraf@...g.ch
Subject: Re: Multicast routing stops functioning after 4G multicast packets
recived.
On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 08:10 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 11:01:46PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Its not clear to me why you expand ipmr_fib_lookup()
> >
> > Is there something wrong with existing code ?
>
> There are three users of ipmr_fib_lookup, two of them are in rcu_read_lock
> section, one is not.
>
> ipmr_fib_lookup does not pass down arg.rule reference, so I don't have a
> chance to call fib_rule_put(arg.rule) on it. Thus I left ipmr_fib_lookup,
> just adding FIB_LOOKUP_NOREF and expanding ipmr_fib_lookup into the
> other function so I still have access to arg.rule to decrement the
> reference counter.
>
> Do you agree?
Hmm, I see the problem now.
What about adding a parameter to ipmr_fib_lookup(),
to keep its spirit ?
ipmr_fib_lookup(net, &fl4, &mrt);
->
ipmr_fib_lookup(net, &fl4, &mrt, &rule);
Since ipmr_rt_fib_lookup() has the same rule leak, no ?
Its a bit late here, so maybe following is just stupid :
Cant we do the fib_rule_put() inside ipmr_fib_lookup() ?
--
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