[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32209efe0802122200w21403331k953be3da80ede52b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:00:36 -0800
From: "Natalie Protasevich" <protasnb@...il.com>
To: "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: An ioctl to delete an ipv6 tunnel leads to a kernel panic
On Feb 12, 2008 9:49 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: "Natalie Protasevich" <protasnb@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:49:12 -0800
>
> > Possible reason for this failure was identified and tested by the
> > submitter and several other reporters that ran into the same problem.
> > Can the patch be reviewed and pushed upstream if accepted (if the
> > problem hasn't been addressed already)?
>
> There are a lot of bogus patches in there, using funny
> long variable names, and mainly they were meant for testing
> and verification of the problem.
>
> I see no real serious patch submissions in that bug and furthermore
> the patch, if ready, should be submitted formally here to netdev not
> rot in bugzilla.
>
> Finally, what appears to be the proposal cannot be correct. If the
> fib6_add_rt2node() finds that the new route is a duplicate, we should
> disconnect it from the fn->leaf and do a dst_release(). The bug
> appears to be rather that we leave the route attached to the fn, not
> that we drop the refrence to it.
>
> Thank you.
Thanks David for looking in this. I will give this thought to the
diligent reporters, unless someone on the net team can produce a patch
for them to test.
Sometimes reporters come up with patches and I always try to make sure
the patches end up on appropriate mailing list, and I will continue
doing so :)
Regards,
--Natalie
>
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists