Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?
From: Phil Oester (kernel_at_linuxace.com)
Date: 01/30/05
- Previous message: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: inter-module-* removal.. small next step"
- In reply to: Russell King: "Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?"
- Next in thread: Phil Oester: "Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:19:13 -0800 To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, 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
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 06:01:46PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > OTOH, if conntrack isn't loaded forwarded packet are never defragmented,
> > so frag_list should be empty. So probably false alarm, sorry.
>
> I've just checked Phil's mails - both Phil and myself are using
> netfilter on the troublesome boxen.
>
> Also, since FragCreates is zero, and this does mean that the frag_list
> is not empty in all cases so far where ip_fragment() has been called.
> (Reading the code, if frag_list was empty, we'd have to create some
> fragments, which increments the FragCreates statistic.)
The below testcase seems to illustrate the problem nicely -- ip_dst_cache
grows but never shrinks:
On gateway:
iptables -I FORWARD -d 10.10.10.0/24 -j DROP
On client:
for i in `seq 1 254` ; do ping -s 1500 -c 5 -w 1 -f 10.10.10.$i ; done
Phil
-
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/
- Previous message: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: inter-module-* removal.. small next step"
- In reply to: Russell King: "Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?"
- Next in thread: Phil Oester: "Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|