[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140319.135319.2039055704156238608.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:53:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: stephen@...workplumber.org
Cc: hannes@...essinduktion.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: fix RTNL assert fail in DAD
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:58:11 -0700
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
>> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:54:06 -0700
>>
>> > On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 01:29:08 +0100
>> > Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I wonder if we should put the whole ipv6_ifa_notify infrastructure in a
>> >> workqueue? I don't like that either and it could add subtile races.
>> >
>> > That is option, might be some call chains that already have rtnl_lock held.
>>
>> There are TAHI ipv6 conformance tests that expect state changes to be
>> precisely synchronous.
>>
>> And frankly it's pretty reasonable to send two packets back to back,
>> one which causes the state change and one which tests if the state
>> change happened, and expect that to work.
>
> It is more the timer based state changes that are problematic because
> they aren't acquire RTNL.
Ok, the timer stuff could run from a workqueue just fine.
--
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