Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:09:36 -0800
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Randall Stewart <rrs@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r344099 - head/sys/net
Message-ID:  <99453977-0f52-6050-3f40-e0fd7ea43d7f@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <201902131457.x1DEvx9V051533@repo.freebsd.org>
References:  <201902131457.x1DEvx9V051533@repo.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/13/19 6:57 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Author: rrs
> Date: Wed Feb 13 14:57:59 2019
> New Revision: 344099
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/344099
> 
> Log:
>   This commit adds the missing release mechanism for the
>   ratelimiting code. The two modules (lagg and vlan) did have
>   allocation routines, and even though they are indirect (and
>   vector down to the underlying interfaces) they both need to
>   have a free routine (that also vectors down to the actual interface).
>   
>   Sponsored by:	Netflix Inc.
>   Differential Revision:	https://reviews.freebsd.org/D19032

Hmm, I don't understand why you'd ever invoke if_snd_tag_free from anything
but 'tag->ifp' rather than some other ifp.  What if the route for a connection
moves so that a tag allocated on cc0 is now on a route that goes over em0?
You can't expect em0 to have an if_snd_tag_free routine that will know to
go invoke cxgbe's snd_tag_free.  I think you should always be using
'tag->ifp->if_snd_tag_free' to free tags and never using any other ifp.

That is, I think this should be reverted and that instead you need to fix
the code invoking if_snd_tag_free to invoke it on the tag's ifp instead of
some random other ifp.

-- 
John Baldwin

                                                                            



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99453977-0f52-6050-3f40-e0fd7ea43d7f>