Re: [PATCH] fix dst_entry leak in icmp_push_reply()

From: Ollie Wild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:05:31 -0700 > Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >Checking the return value of ip_append_data seems cleaner to me. > >Patch attached. > > > > > Works for me. Applied, thanks everyone. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc

Re: [PATCH] fix dst_entry leak in icmp_push_reply()

Patrick McHardy wrote: Checking the return value of ip_append_data seems cleaner to me. Patch attached. Works for me. Thanks, Ollie - 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.ker

Re: [PATCH] fix dst_entry leak in icmp_push_reply()

Ollie Wild wrote: > That said, I appreciate that the if-else condition doesn't seem quite > right. The problem is, the icmp_push_reply() routine is implicitly > using the queue as a success indicator. I put the > ip_flush_pending_frames() call inside the else block because I wanted to > guarantee

Re: [PATCH] fix dst_entry leak in icmp_push_reply()

Ollie Wild wrote: Patrick McHardy wrote: Your patch doesn't fit your description, the else-condition you're adding triggers when the queue is empty, so what is the point? Since we're only calling ip_append_data() once here, the two conditions are identical. I should mention that this pro

Re: [PATCH] fix dst_entry leak in icmp_push_reply()

Ollie Wild wrote: > Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> Ollie Wild wrote: >> >>> If the ip_append_data() call in icmp_push_reply() fails, >>> ip_flush_pending_frames() needs to be called. Otherwise, ip_rt_put() >>> is never called on inet_sk(icmp_socket->sk)->cork.rt, which prevents >>> the route (and ne

Re: [PATCH] fix dst_entry leak in icmp_push_reply()

Patrick McHardy wrote: Ollie Wild wrote: If the ip_append_data() call in icmp_push_reply() fails, ip_flush_pending_frames() needs to be called. Otherwise, ip_rt_put() is never called on inet_sk(icmp_socket->sk)->cork.rt, which prevents the route (and net_device) from ever being freed. Yo

Re: [PATCH] fix dst_entry leak in icmp_push_reply()

Ollie Wild wrote: If the ip_append_data() call in icmp_push_reply() fails, ip_flush_pending_frames() needs to be called. Otherwise, ip_rt_put() is never called on inet_sk(icmp_socket->sk)->cork.rt, which prevents the route (and net_device) from ever being freed. I've attached a patch which f

[PATCH] fix dst_entry leak in icmp_push_reply()

If the ip_append_data() call in icmp_push_reply() fails, ip_flush_pending_frames() needs to be called. Otherwise, ip_rt_put() is never called on inet_sk(icmp_socket->sk)->cork.rt, which prevents the route (and net_device) from ever being freed. I've attached a patch which fixes the problem.