From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Gortmaker Subject: [PATCH net-next 0/3] Three possible UDP fixes. Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:43:37 -0400 Message-ID: <1308689020-1873-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Paul Gortmaker To: davem@davemloft.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]:58213 "EHLO mail.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756933Ab1FUUny (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:43:54 -0400 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: These were originally found on a 2.6.34 baseline, but I looked at them and couldn't see any reason why they wouldn't be valid fixes on net-next. But I'll feel better when someone like Dave and/or Eric sanity checks them too. There was one thing that was a consideration. In the 3rd patch, where we clear MSG_TRUNC bit -- is there anything in there that we really need to be concerned about preserving on the retry, or could we just unconditionally do "msg->msg_flags = 0" ? I wasn't sure, and so sticking with clearing the offending bit seemed like the most cautious approach. Thanks, Paul. --- Mark Asselstine (1): net: ipv4: fix potential memory leak by assigning uhash_entries Xufeng Zhang (2): ipv6/udp: Use the correct variable to determine non-blocking condition udp/recvmsg: Clear MSG_TRUNC flag when starting over for a new packet net/ipv4/udp.c | 5 ++++- net/ipv6/udp.c | 5 ++++- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) -- 1.7.4.4