From: David Woodhouse
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:44:22 +0100
> On Sat, 2018-06-16 at 16:27 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: "David Woodhouse"
>> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 20:52:33 -
>>
>> >> This Fixes tag shoots the messenger really.
>> >>
>> >> I suggest to instead use :
>> >>
>> >> Fixes:
On Sat, 2018-06-16 at 16:27 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: "David Woodhouse"
> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 20:52:33 -
>
> >> This Fixes tag shoots the messenger really.
> >>
> >> I suggest to instead use :
> >>
> >> Fixes: 158f323b9868 ("net: adjust skb->truesize in pskb_expand_head()")
> >
>
From: "David Woodhouse"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 20:52:33 -
>> This Fixes tag shoots the messenger really.
>>
>> I suggest to instead use :
>>
>> Fixes: 158f323b9868 ("net: adjust skb->truesize in pskb_expand_head()")
>
>
> Oh, I hadn't realised how recent that was. Sure, let's blame you inst
> This Fixes tag shoots the messenger really.
>
> I suggest to instead use :
>
> Fixes: 158f323b9868 ("net: adjust skb->truesize in pskb_expand_head()")
Oh, I hadn't realised how recent that was. Sure, let's blame you instead :)
--
dwmw2
>> Commit 14afee4b609 ("net: convert sock.sk_wmem_alloc from atomic_t to
>> refcount_t") did exactly what it was intended to do, and turned this
>> mostly-theoretical problem into a real one, causing PPPoATM to fail
>> immediately as sk_wmem_alloc underflows and atm_may_send() *immediately*
>> st
On 06/16/2018 03:55 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> ATM accounts for in-flight TX packets in sk_wmem_alloc of the VCC on
> which they are to be sent. But it doesn't take ownership of those
> packets from the sock (if any) which originally owned them. They should
> remain owned by their actual sende
ATM accounts for in-flight TX packets in sk_wmem_alloc of the VCC on
which they are to be sent. But it doesn't take ownership of those
packets from the sock (if any) which originally owned them. They should
remain owned by their actual sender until they've left the box.
There's a hack in pskb_expa
