[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1339492184.22704.26.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:09:44 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: vdavydov@...allels.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible deadlock in ipv6?
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 23:54 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> 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.
>
Hmm...
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)
dev_put(n->dev);
release_net(pneigh_net(n));
--
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