On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 09:59:06PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 09:51:01PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov ([EMAIL
> PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 09:48:51PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov ([EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Stop, we are trying to free skb without destructor and catch connection
> > > tracking, so it is not a solution. To fix the problem we need to check
> > > if it is not netfilter related, kind of this (not tested), Simon please
> > > give it a try:
> >
> > And to be really cool we need to bypass skbs with xfrm attached, since
> > its freeing also assumes BH context.
>
> What about compile options?
What about my original suggestion that we mark skbs owned by netpoll
and free only those. Much safer, no? Untested:
diff -r c60016ba6237 net/core/netpoll.c
--- a/net/core/netpoll.c Tue Nov 13 09:09:36 2007 -0800
+++ b/net/core/netpoll.c Fri Nov 23 13:10:28 2007 -0600
@@ -203,6 +203,12 @@ static void refill_skbs(void)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&skb_pool.lock, flags);
}
+/* used to mark an skb as owned by netpoll */
+static void netpoll_skb_destroy(struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ return;
+}
+
static void zap_completion_queue(void)
{
unsigned long flags;
@@ -219,10 +225,12 @@ static void zap_completion_queue(void)
while (clist != NULL) {
struct sk_buff *skb = clist;
clist = clist->next;
- if (skb->destructor)
+ if (skb->destructor == netpoll_skb_destroy) {
+ skb->destructor = NULL;
+ __kfree_skb(skb);
+ }
+ else
dev_kfree_skb_any(skb); /* put this one back */
- else
- __kfree_skb(skb);
}
}
@@ -252,6 +260,7 @@ repeat:
atomic_set(&skb->users, 1);
skb_reserve(skb, reserve);
+ skb->destructor = netpoll_skb_destroy;
return skb;
}
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/
