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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:09:44 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: Possible deadlock in ipv6?

On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 23:54 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <>
> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:58:34 +0200
> > And it seems this neigh_down() can be removed, its called later
> > (after dev->ip6_ptr is cleared)
> It is unclear whether we need to do the the neigh_down() in both
> the 'how' and '!how' cases.  If so then we can't make this change.


Is it expected we send traffic on device dismantle ?

If no, we could do :

diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
index d81d026..16e0ddb 100644
--- a/net/core/neighbour.c
+++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
@@ -681,8 +681,6 @@ static int pneigh_ifdown(struct neigh_table *tbl, struct net_device *dev)
 		while ((n = *np) != NULL) {
 			if (!dev || n->dev == dev) {
 				*np = n->next;
-				if (tbl->pdestructor)
-					tbl->pdestructor(n);
 				if (n->dev)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists