> > > > - still leaks mbufs in the cases of ENOBUF?
> > > 
> > > 	no, we loss "m" due to pullup.
> > 
> > m will be lost, but m->m_nextpkt isn't.
> 
> it seems that you already fixed it.  sorry for noise.
> 
> however, with keysock.c rev.1.34,
> kp_queue will be stamped in the case of !canwait && ENOBUFS.
> i think that it's better to always consult kp_queue first.
> (ie. "if (canwait)" -> "if (1)".)

	i intentionally deferred the use of kp_queue as SADB_DUMP is less
	important than other operations.  i don't think there's many IPsec key
	management daemon which issues PF_KEY operation concurrently, but
	anyways, this is the thought behind that "if (canwait)" clause.

itojun