On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think what's happening is that the conntrack entry is destroyed > and the NAT ct_extend destructor invoked, which removes the nat > extension from the RCU protected bysource hash, after which the > entire extension area is freed. Another CPU might still find the > old NAT entry with undefined contents in the hash though, so I > think using RCU to free the extension area is correct. > What is the conclusion? Is my patch acceptable? Thanks. -- Regards, Changli Gao(xiaosuo@xxxxxxxxx) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
