On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:17:01 +0000
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. Someone suggested this evening that there may have been a recent
> change to do with some IPv6 refcounting which may have caused this
> problem. Is that something you can confirm?
Yep, it would be this change below. Try backing it out and see
if that makes your leak go away.
# This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
#
# ChangeSet
# 2005/01/14 20:41:55-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# [IPV6]: Fix locking in ip6_dst_lookup().
#
# The caller does not necessarily have the socket locked
# (udpv6sendmsg() is one such case) so we have to use
# sk_dst_check() instead of __sk_dst_check().
#
# Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
#
# net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
# 2005/01/14 20:41:34-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +3 -3
# [IPV6]: Fix locking in ip6_dst_lookup().
#
# The caller does not necessarily have the socket locked
# (udpv6sendmsg() is one such case) so we have to use
# sk_dst_check() instead of __sk_dst_check().
#
# Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
#
diff -Nru a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
--- a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c 2005-01-27 16:07:21 -08:00
+++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c 2005-01-27 16:07:21 -08:00
@@ -745,7 +745,7 @@
if (sk) {
struct ipv6_pinfo *np = inet6_sk(sk);
- *dst = __sk_dst_check(sk, np->dst_cookie);
+ *dst = sk_dst_check(sk, np->dst_cookie);
if (*dst) {
struct rt6_info *rt = (struct rt6_info*)*dst;
@@ -772,9 +772,9 @@
&& (np->daddr_cache == NULL ||
!ipv6_addr_equal(&fl->fl6_dst,
np->daddr_cache)))
|| (fl->oif && fl->oif != (*dst)->dev->ifindex)) {
+ dst_release(*dst);
*dst = NULL;
- } else
- dst_hold(*dst);
+ }
}
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
