On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 19:03 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:58:20PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > Indeed. But then why did we never see this bug w/o monitor interfaces > > and this reinjection? > > The debugging only catches it if the expanded area actually > gets used, e.g., by skb_push. I'm confused. The area should be used say with encryption when it's actually necessary. Maybe there's always enough headroom for some reason now? On another note, why is this truesize mismatch a bug anyway? I mean, the field could just be called "socket_charged_size" and simply be required to have the same value throughout the skb lifetime, the slight mismatch between charged bytes and actually used bytes wouldn't usually matter too much, would it? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
