From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: Multicast routing stops functioning after 4G multicast packets recived. Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:42:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20140112074245.GF6586@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <20140109201411.317040@gmx.com> <20140110063638.GA17866@order.stressinduktion.org> <1389337306.31367.94.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <20140110071049.GB17866@order.stressinduktion.org> <1389339179.31367.98.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <20140110074325.GC17866@order.stressinduktion.org> <20140110075005.GD17866@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 To: Eric Dumazet , Bob Falken , Julian Anastasov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net, tgraf@suug.ch Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:57704 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751003AbaALHmq (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jan 2014 02:42:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140110075005.GD17866@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:50:05AM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > > Its a bit late here, so maybe following is just stupid : > > > Cant we do the fib_rule_put() inside ipmr_fib_lookup() ? > > > > We could add bool noref to ipmr_fib_lookup indicating we want to drop > > reference to rule just after lookup. > > > > I'll check if freeing a rule has additional side-effects on dependencies > > in reg_vif_xmit. That would be a nice solution actually, thanks! > > Hmm, rule holds a reference to the net namespace in use. I don't know > if we want to add this special case. I guess net-namespace reference > cannot be removed while processing ndo_start_xmit callback but I don't > like this special case somehow. But I guess it is possible. > > Your opinion on that? Hm, Eric. If we do that we can just specifiy FIB_LOOKUP_NOREF unconditionally. FIB_LOOKUP_NOREF has no other side effects on a ipmr lookup as taking the reference on the rule, which we would drop after that. So we would actually be going back to the first patch in this thread. I guess it is just a matter of style? Greetings, Hannes