From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9699 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2003 13:41:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9688 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2003 13:41:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hermes.chez-thomas.org) (63.225.98.241) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2003 13:41:23 -0000 Received: by hermes.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 2000) id 64DA850D8D9; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:41:22 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C57850D8D6; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:41:21 -0700 (MST) From: Gary Thomas To: Larice Robert Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <200311201234.hAKCYnK17016@doms.vidisys.com> References: <200311201234.hAKCYnK17016@doms.vidisys.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: MLB Associates Message-Id: <1069335681.1961.638.camel@hermes> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:41:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_XIMIAN autolearn=ham version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) Subject: Re: [ECOS] mbuf leakage in if_i82559.c ? X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 05:34, Larice Robert wrote: > Hello, > > i think there is possible mbuf leakage in if_i82559.c > could you please verify this ? > > as far as i understand this, eth_drv.c hands over responsibility for mbufs > to if_i82559.c with the parameter key of the function i82559_send(...key...) > > later if_i82599.c gives them back to eth_drv.c with the parameter key > of the function eth_drv_tx_done(...key...) > > BUT, when i82559_send thinks its queue is full, it will simply drop this > key. is this ok ? is there somewhere another cleanup mechanism which > i've not seen so far ? > This would be a leak - if it could happen. However, it should never happen since the XXX_send() routine will only be called if the XXX_can_send() routine says that the device has space. So if there *is* space, then the packet would not be dropped, so there is no leak. -- Gary Thomas MLB Associates -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss