Le 05/03/2016 17:22, David Miller a écrit : > From: f6bvp <f6...@free.fr> > Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:32:42 +0100 > >> I understand I did not explain clearly or completely things. >> >> I agree that each time patched rose_xmit() is calling >> rose_route_frame() it will >> get a 0 return. >> And I think this is what was intended by the author of rose_xmit(). > > If that's what he intended he would have implemented the entirety of > rose_xmit() as "kfree_skb(skb)". But that's obviously not the case. > > The author meant the packet to be sent in some way, perhaps using a > default path or something like that.
Via a NULL pointer ? I don't see how it could work. > > So please stop telling me over and over again that this function > is meant to simply drop all packets, it's not true. > I am just making hypothesis and trying to infer some deductions from the behaviour of program when there is no more kernel panic. If there is a situation leading to a kernel panic, I thought code should be changed ? What is the problem replacing a NULL argument by an array of 0 ?
