[patch 1/3 -next] 6LoWPAN: use kfree_skb() instead of kfree()

Use kfree_skb() to free sbk_buffs.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <redacted>

diff --git a/net/ieee802154/6lowpan.c b/net/ieee802154/6lowpan.c
index cf304cc..8a9dbaa 100644
--- a/net/ieee802154/6lowpan.c
+++ b/net/ieee802154/6lowpan.c

@@ -674,7 +674,7 @@ lowpan_process_data(struct sk_buff *skb)
 							sizeof(hdr));
 	return lowpan_skb_deliver(skb, &hdr);
 drop:
-	kfree(skb);
+	kfree_skb(skb);
 	return -EINVAL;
 }
 

Le mardi 30 août 2011 à 16:45 +0300, Dan Carpenter a écrit :

Another bug is the skb_copy() done in lowpan_skb_deliver()

1) No check of skb_copy() return 

2.1) Use of GFP_KERNEL : Is it safe at this point ? Aren’t we in
softirq ?

2.2) If GFP_KERNEL is safe, why do we later do :

	if (in_interrupt())
		stat = netif_rx(skb);
	else
		stat = netif_rx_ni(skb);

Hi Dan, Eric,

thank you a lot for the finds, that were my faults.

With best regards,
Alexander


2011/8/30 Eric Dumazet [off-list ref]:

Le mardi 30 août 2011 à 16:45 +0300, Dan Carpenter a écrit :

quoted

Use kfree_skb() to free sbk_buffs.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <redacted>

diff --git a/net/ieee802154/6lowpan.c b/net/ieee802154/6lowpan.c
index cf304cc..8a9dbaa 100644
--- a/net/ieee802154/6lowpan.c
+++ b/net/ieee802154/6lowpan.c

@@ -674,7 +674,7 @@ lowpan_process_data(struct sk_buff *skb)

                                                      sizeof(hdr));
      return lowpan_skb_deliver(skb, &hdr);
 drop:
-     kfree(skb);
+     kfree_skb(skb);
      return -EINVAL;
 }

Another bug is the skb_copy() done in lowpan_skb_deliver()

1) No check of skb_copy() return

2.1) Use of GFP_KERNEL : Is it safe at this point ? Aren’t we in
softirq ?

2.2) If GFP_KERNEL is safe, why do we later do :

       if (in_interrupt())
               stat = netif_rx(skb);
       else
               stat = netif_rx_ni(skb);

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 01:26:02PM +0400, Alexander Smirnov wrote:

Hi Dan, Eric,

thank you a lot for the finds, that were my faults.

So uh...  You're going to send a patch to fix the things Eric
mentioned, right?

regards,
dan carpenter

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 06:04:25PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 01:26:02PM +0400, Alexander Smirnov wrote:

quoted

Hi Dan, Eric,

thank you a lot for the finds, that were my faults.

So uh...  You're going to send a patch to fix the things Eric
mentioned, right?

Ah.  You did already.  I see that now.  Sorry for the noise.

regards,
dan carpenter