Re: Examine route.c! -- two bugs fixed -- patch attached!

[Daniel Ryde]

Ok, I have tested a bit more and found that:
  yes | nc somehost discard &
does reproduce the problem more reliably even with this patch applied. But
only when 'somehost' is a linux firewall (that also acts as a router
here). It also takes some minutes before it start to increase the
allocation in "route.c:1422", like it has to fill up some buffer in the
firewall or so. If I make 'somehost' a normal linux machine then it does
not began to leak.

Can I supply some useful tcpdump when this starts to happen? Some ideas
on how to filter the dump, otherwise it will be very large to examine.
Maybe even tcpdump won't be able to keep up to that amount of data?

/Ryde

On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Daniel Ryde wrote:

> Am, maybe I was a bit hasted there. Now after 45 minutes of network
> banging then "route.c:1422" jumed up to 7440. Well, it is definatley much
> better than before, but maby not entierly solved.
> 
> 
> /Ryde
> 
> On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Daniel Ryde wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Philip Gladstone wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes -- the udp problem will happen without firewalling.
> > > I even have a test program that runs up the route.c:1422
> > > by 1000 entries each time it is run!
> > 
> > Wooohaa! That sees to solve the problem. Yes yes yes!
> > Ok, I am targetting the packages onto a firewall if that's what you ment.
> > Now the route.c:1422 stays between 20 and 40, and I have banged the 
> > network for half an hour now.
> > 
> > 
> > /Ryde
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>