On 2017-01-12 at 15:54:31 +0100, Vadim Kochan <vadi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Tobias Klauser <tklau...@distanz.ch> wrote:
[...]
> >> enum flow_direction {
> >> @@ -355,15 +357,15 @@ static inline struct flow_entry
> >> *flow_entry_xalloc(void)
> >> static inline void flow_entry_xfree(struct flow_entry *n)
> >> {
> >> if (n->ct)
> >> - nfct_destroy(n->ct);
> >> + xfree(n->ct);
> >
> > This would leak memory allocated internally in struct nf_contrack, no?
> > What's the reason for this change?
>
> nfct_destroy(ct) may fail if we free entry after nfct event processing
> (our free is defered now because of RCU),
> so using just free(x) is safer because we do just nfct_clone(ct) which
> just allocated another nfct_conntrack entry for us,
> but ofcourse it would be better to have something nfct_free(x), so I
> agree this is not nice but safer.
As long as it causes memory to be leaked IMO it is equally bad.
If flow_entry_xfree() and thus nfct_destroy() is called via the
call_rcu() wrapper I proposed, it should no longer be unsafe to call
nfct_destroy()
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"netsniff-ng" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to netsniff-ng+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
