Recently we added logic that protects against a peer negotiating a timestamp, and
then not including a timestamp. This involved in the input path doing a goto done_with_input
label. Now I suspect the code was cribbed from one in Rack that has to do with the SYN.
This had a bug, i.e. it should have a m_freem(m) before going to the label (bbr had this
missing m_freem() but rack did not). This then caused the missing m_freem to show
up in both BBR and Rack. Also looking at the code referencing m->m_pkthdr.lro_nsegs
later (after processing) is not a good idea, even though its only for logging. Best to
copy that off before any frees can take place.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
tuexen - Group Reviewers
transport - Commits
- rGd0eaf95edcaf: tcp: Missing mfree in rack and bbr
rGba1b3e48f5be: tcp: Missing mfree in rack and bbr
Run my setup that has had the mbuf leak and see if it cures it.
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Lint
Lint Skipped - Unit
Tests Skipped
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Is this the primary suspect for the mbuf leak issue around the socket upcall() handling?