netdev - Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

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: <20070104110435.GA3175@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:04:35 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>, greearb@...delatech.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!  (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:27:07PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:50:14AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > 
> > Could you explain? I can see some inet_rtm_newaddr
> > interrupted. For me it could be e.g.:
> > 
> > after
> > vconfig add eth0 9
> > 
> > ip addr add dev eth0.9 ...
> 
> Whether eth0.9 is up or not does not affect this at all.  The spin
> locks are initialised (and used) when the first IPv4 address is added,
> not when the device comes up.

I understand this. I consider IFF_UP as a sign all 
initialisations (open functions including) are
completed and there is permission for working (so
logically, if I would do eth0.9 down all traffic
should be stopped, what probably isn't true now).

Jarek P. 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html