On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 01:11:20PM -0600, Matt Mackall ([email protected]) wrote:
> 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:
This should work if there are netpoll's skbs, but if we are under memory
pressure we want to free not only netpoll skbs, but at least one, and
what if there are no netpoll skbs in the queue?
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
