Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261739AbVA3RXo (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:23:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261741AbVA3RXo (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:23:44 -0500 Received: from [62.206.217.67] ([62.206.217.67]:3225 "EHLO kaber.coreworks.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261739AbVA3RXm (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:23:42 -0500 Message-ID: <41FD17FE.6050007@trash.net> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:23:10 +0100 From: Patrick McHardy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050106 Debian/1.7.5-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russell King CC: "David S. Miller" , Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se, akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org, alexn@dsv.su.se, kas@fi.muni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1? References: <20050124114853.A16971@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050125193207.B30094@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050127082809.A20510@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050127004732.5d8e3f62.akpm@osdl.org> <16888.58622.376497.380197@robur.slu.se> <20050127164918.C3036@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050127123326.2eafab35.davem@davemloft.net> <20050128001701.D22695@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050127163444.1bfb673b.davem@davemloft.net> <20050128085858.B9486@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050130132343.A25000@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20050130132343.A25000@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 779 Lines: 20 Russell King wrote: >I don't know if the code is using fragment lists in ip_fragment(), but >on reading the code a question comes to mind: if we have a list of >fragments, does each fragment skb have a valid (and refcounted) dst >pointer before ip_fragment() does it's job? If yes, then isn't the >first ip_copy_metadata() in ip_fragment() going to overwrite this >pointer without dropping the refcount? > Nice spotting. If conntrack isn't loaded defragmentation happens after routing, so this is likely the cause. Regards Patrick - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/