linux-kernel - Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1409684570.15984.6.camel@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:02:50 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Cc:	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, trinity@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)

On Di, 2014-09-02 at 11:40 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> > Those ASSERT_RTNLs were misplaced and only caught the callers mostly
> > from addrconf.c. I don't mind getting reports from stable kernel users
> > and fixing those, too (or help fixing those). ASSERT_RTNL is not
> > dangerous.
> >
> > We had a long history in not correctly using rtnl lock in ipv6/multicast
> > code and those wrongfully placed ASSERT_RTNLs were my bad when I fixed
> > the duplicate address detection handling.
> >
> > If enough multicast addresses are subscribed to an interface we might
> > again get those splats because enabling promisc mode on an interface
> > will also check for rtnl lock.
> >
> 
> Sure, I never doubt adding ASSERT_RTNL() is helpful, I just still think
> this should be for net-next, or at least a separated patch. I don't want
> my patch to be blamed in others' "Fixes:". :)

Come on, that's why we have community review. Nobody blames anyone
because of added regressions. It's more a fault of the community then,
and it works out fairly good I think! Even others are keen on fixing
your bugs sometimes. ;)

If fixes tag is well researched, it won't point to the addition of
ASSERT_RTNL() but your patch would help to discover a bug somewhere else
in the stack.

I think for this patch a fixes-tag is hard to find because it is hard to
find because it dates back to the beginning of the git history IMHO.

Bye,
Hannes


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/