[PATCH] fix skb leak in af_irda.c

[PATCH] fix skb leak in af_irda.c

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Hi David, Jean,

	Please apply.

- Arnaldo

===== net/irda/af_irda.c 1.46 vs edited =====
--- 1.46/net/irda/af_irda.c	Sat Aug 30 23:15:30 2003
+++ edited/net/irda/af_irda.c	Sat Nov  1 03:18:02 2003
@@ -187,12 +187,12 @@
 
 	IRDA_DEBUG(2, "%s(%p)\n", __FUNCTION__, self);
 
+	dev_kfree_skb(skb);
+	// Should be ??? skb_queue_tail(&sk->sk_receive_queue, skb);
+
 	sk = self->sk;
 	if (sk == NULL)
 		return;
-
-	dev_kfree_skb(skb);
-	// Should be ??? skb_queue_tail(&sk->sk_receive_queue, skb);
 
 	/* How much header space do we need to reserve */
 	self->max_header_size = max_header_size;

Re: [PATCH] fix skb leak in af_irda.c

[Jean Tourrilhes]

On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:19:31AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Hi David, Jean,
> 
> 	Please apply.
> 
> - Arnaldo

	Hum... It looks as if it didn't made into the kernel. Ok, I'll
add that in my patch queue and push that for you ;-)
	Have fun...

	Jean

Re: [PATCH] fix skb leak in af_irda.c

[David S. Miller]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 14:42:01 -0800
Jean Tourrilhes <jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:19:31AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Hi David, Jean,
> > 
> > 	Please apply.
> 
> 	Hum... It looks as if it didn't made into the kernel. Ok, I'll
> add that in my patch queue and push that for you ;-)

It isn't in because I was waiting for an acknowledgment
from you Jean :-)

Re: [PATCH] fix skb leak in af_irda.c

[David S. Miller]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:29:30 -0800
Jean Tourrilhes <jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 	I personally would prefer the following patch. The difference
> is mostly cosmetic. Tested with 2.6.0-test9. Anyway, both patches are
> obviously correct.

Applied, with attribution also given to Arnaldo.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] fix skb leak in af_irda.c

[Jean Tourrilhes]

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:30:42PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 14:42:01 -0800
> Jean Tourrilhes <jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:19:31AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Hi David, Jean,
> > > 
> > > 	Please apply.
> > 
> > 	Hum... It looks as if it didn't made into the kernel. Ok, I'll
> > add that in my patch queue and push that for you ;-)
> 
> It isn't in because I was waiting for an acknowledgment
> from you Jean :-)

	*Ahem*... Sorry about that...
	I personally would prefer the following patch. The difference
is mostly cosmetic. Tested with 2.6.0-test9. Anyway, both patches are
obviously correct.
	Thanks for keeping on top of those things...

	Jean

---------------------------------------------------------

diff -u -p linux/net/irda/af_irda.d4.c linux/net/irda/af_irda.c
--- linux/net/irda/af_irda.d4.c	Tue Nov  4 14:37:25 2003
+++ linux/net/irda/af_irda.c	Tue Nov  4 14:39:10 2003
@@ -188,8 +188,10 @@ static void irda_connect_confirm(void *i
 	IRDA_DEBUG(2, "%s(%p)\n", __FUNCTION__, self);
 
 	sk = self->sk;
-	if (sk == NULL)
+	if (sk == NULL) {
+		dev_kfree_skb(skb);
 		return;
+	}
 
 	dev_kfree_skb(skb);
 	// Should be ??? skb_queue_tail(&sk->sk_receive_queue, skb);
@@ -248,8 +250,10 @@ static void irda_connect_indication(void
 	IRDA_DEBUG(2, "%s(%p)\n", __FUNCTION__, self);
 
 	sk = self->sk;
-	if (sk == NULL)
+	if (sk == NULL) {
+		dev_kfree_skb(skb);
 		return;
+	}
 
 	/* How much header space do we need to reserve */
 	self->max_header_size = max_header_size;