On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 09:45:18PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:18:38AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > I don't mean it's necessary. I mean now skb is freed > > unconditionally and after this patch, if there is some > > error in counting, skb will stay. I thought Masayuki > > wrote about such possibility, but if I missed his > > point, then the rest is really O.K. > > OK, I see what you mean.
Now I see what I mean too... And it's very bad! This patch was done to allow more skb->users here, so this debugging would warn mainly about something we've just enabled. I was simply fooled by this change - how it was possible to work all these days? I see, the main idea is: the data from skb is copied at this level only and no cloning (tcp_ipv4). Except tcp_ipv6. So this patch is changing it to ipv6 way. It seems to be quite brave. I think there was some reason to do this "old way" and I hope consequences were analyzed. There are also other doubts: what decisions are made? According to tcp_rcv_state_process skb should be dropped. tcp_v6_do_rcv seems to have other opinion. And after this change there could be, probably, more such doubtful places. Maybe it would be sufficient to enable this by some additional "if" and return code from conn_request in the "if (th->syn)" block? Regards, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
