> > The first mbuf and the last mbuf to be visited in the preceding loop
> > are not set to NULL in the fragmentation table. This creates the
> > possibility of a double free when the fragmentation table is later freed
> > with rte_ip_frag_table_destroy().
> >
> > Fixes: 95908f52393d ("ip_frag: f
> -Original Message-
> From: Allain Legacy [mailto:allain.leg...@windriver.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 2:25 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Peters, Matt (Wind River) ;
> sta...@dpdk.org
> Subject: [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix double free of chained mbufs
>
> The fir
> -Original Message-
> From: Legacy, Allain [mailto:allain.leg...@windriver.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 12:28 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Peters, Matt (Wind River) ;
> sta...@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix double free of chained mbufs
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin [mailto:konstantin.anan...@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 7:02 AM
<..>
>
>
> I wonder why we have to NULL only first and cur entry?
> We probably have to NULL each one in that case, right?
We have to do first and current entr
Hi Allain,
>
> The first mbuf and the last mbuf to be visited in the preceding loop
> are not set to NULL in the fragmentation table. This creates the
> possibility of a double free when the fragmentation table is later freed
> with rte_ip_frag_table_destroy().
>
> Fixes: 95908f52393d ("ip_frag
Please, any review?
19/03/2018 15:25, Allain Legacy:
> The first mbuf and the last mbuf to be visited in the preceding loop
> are not set to NULL in the fragmentation table. This creates the
> possibility of a double free when the fragmentation table is later freed
> with rte_ip_frag_table_destro
6 matches
Mail list logo
