svn commit: r344099 - head/sys/net

[Randall Stewart]

I disagree. If you define an alloc it is only
reciprocal that you should define a free.

The code in question that hit this was changed (its in a version
of rack that has the rate-limit and TLS code).. but I think these
things *should* be balanced.. if you provide an Allocate, you
should also provide a Free… 

R


> On Feb 13, 2019, at 12:09 PM, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On 2/13/19 6:57 AM, Randall Stewart wrote:
>> Author: rrs
>> Date: Wed Feb 13 14:57:59 2019
>> New Revision: 344099
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/344099
>> 
>> Log:
>>  This commit adds the missing release mechanism for the
>>  ratelimiting code. The two modules (lagg and vlan) did have
>>  allocation routines, and even though they are indirect (and
>>  vector down to the underlying interfaces) they both need to
>>  have a free routine (that also vectors down to the actual interface).
>> 
>>  Sponsored by:	Netflix Inc.
>>  Differential Revision:	https://reviews.freebsd.org/D19032
> 
> Hmm, I don't understand why you'd ever invoke if_snd_tag_free from anything
> but 'tag->ifp' rather than some other ifp.  What if the route for a connection
> moves so that a tag allocated on cc0 is now on a route that goes over em0?
> You can't expect em0 to have an if_snd_tag_free routine that will know to
> go invoke cxgbe's snd_tag_free.  I think you should always be using
> 'tag->ifp->if_snd_tag_free' to free tags and never using any other ifp.
> 
> That is, I think this should be reverted and that instead you need to fix
> the code invoking if_snd_tag_free to invoke it on the tag's ifp instead of
> some random other ifp.
> 
> -- 
> John Baldwin
> 
>                                                                             

------
Randall Stewart
rrs at netflix.com