On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 04:18:24PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > Hmm, and what happens if the PCB is the only holder of this route?
> > The refcnt will be 1 in this case, and the code drops the reference
> > by setting inp->inp_route.ro_rt = 0. How this route can be reused
> > (a
< said:
> Hmm, and what happens if the PCB is the only holder of this route?
> The refcnt will be 1 in this case, and the code drops the reference
> by setting inp->inp_route.ro_rt = 0. How this route can be reused
> (and deleted) later?
That would be a bug. rtfree() must always be called befo
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:13:27AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > Since rt was the cached route of the pcb, the ref count is >= 1
> > since the pcb will have a ref count on it. In the case of a dynamic
> > route, in_losing calls rtrequest to delete the route but not rtfree.
> > rt
< said:
> Since rt was the cached route of the pcb, the ref count is >= 1
> since the pcb will have a ref count on it. In the case of a dynamic
> route, in_losing calls rtrequest to delete the route but not rtfree.
> rtrequest() only deletes the route from the routing table. It does
> not free
Hi,
I've been looking at PR kern/25421, where Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
have found a problem where we're leaking route structure, his fix
(http://people.FreeBSD.org/~jesper/pcb.diff) looks good to me, but could
you please have a look, as I'm not too familiar with this part of the
code.
His
