On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 7:26 AM Marco Elver wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 17:35, Willem de Bruijn
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:19 AM Marco Elver wrote:
> [...]
> > > Will send v2.
> >
> > Does it make more sense to revert the patch that added the extensions
> > and the follow-on
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 17:35, Willem de Bruijn
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:19 AM Marco Elver wrote:
[...]
> > Will send v2.
>
> Does it make more sense to revert the patch that added the extensions
> and the follow-on fixes and add a separate new patch instead?
That doesn't work, because
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:19 AM Marco Elver wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 21:43, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:34:36 +0100 Marco Elver wrote:
> > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > index ffe3dcc0ebea..070b1077d976 100644
> > > ---
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 21:43, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:34:36 +0100 Marco Elver wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > index ffe3dcc0ebea..070b1077d976 100644
> > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > @@ -233,6 +233,7 @@ struct
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:34:36 +0100 Marco Elver wrote:
> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> index ffe3dcc0ebea..070b1077d976 100644
> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> @@ -233,6 +233,7 @@ struct sk_buff *__alloc_skb(unsigned int size, gfp_t
> gfp_mask,
>
It turns out that usage of skb extensions can cause memory leaks. Ido
Schimmel reported: "[...] there are instances that blindly overwrite
'skb->extensions' by invoking skb_copy_header() after __alloc_skb()."
Therefore, give up on using skb extensions for KCOV handle, and instead
directly store
6 matches
Mail list logo