On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Pravin B Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Today vport-send has complex error handling because it involves >>>>> freeing skb and updating stats depending on return value from >>>>> vport send implementation. >>>>> This can be simplified by delegating responsibility of freeing >>>>> skb to the vport implementation for all cases. So that >>>>> vport-send needs just update stats. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pravin B Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> >>>> >>>> It's somewhat non-obvious to me that handle_offloads should free the >>>> skb in the event of an error. It seems like this introduces more >>>> complexity to this patch as well. >>>> >>>> As an example of the problem, I think that the previous patch >>>> introduces a double free in the non-compat case. This is because it >>>> updates the skb freeing for the compat code in handle_offloads() but >>>> the equivalent update to the non-compat code isn't made until this >>>> patch. >>> >>> I now see that the upstream iptunnel_handle_offloads() also frees the >>> skb on error but it seems like this has introduced some errors as >>> well. It looks like several tunnel protocols continue using the skb >>> after calling handle_offloads without any kind of check. >> >> right, Thats the reason. >> I am not sure which one still missing the check, Can you point me to >> them? I have fixed GRE already. > > It looks like Geneve is the only one at this point - I thought that > VXLAN had a similar problem but I was looking at an old version of the > code.
OK, you are looking at upstream Geneve code. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
