On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:20:36PM +0000, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 01:01:21PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> > The unsupported jumbo message might be a clue. When we jump to the next: >> > label, the buffer is at the end of the list in software, while in >> > hardware it isn't. In theory, we might hit the bug with rx buffers >> > exhaustion, because the test (bf_last == bf) doesn't work as expected then. >> >> This seems to be happening somewhat regularly now - I've got a small >> collections of the warnings (I'll include them below in case they are >> any help):
If this is a recent phenomenon, can you try reverting my patch, fcf6b1bca8cdfefc986909b57277af4628955bd8? This was the last patch to touch the rx path in a meaningful way. I can't think of anything there that would cause a use-after-free in the change, maybe removing the "bf->skb = NULL" line, but that's the software struct, not the hardware dma descriptor. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
