[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHA+R7MMe+O9-sNHQvgOO78tBzDy+hO+GtJFsuJPKx0eG6eMaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:40:30 -0700
From: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, trinity@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> Those ASSERT_RTNLs were misplaced and only caught the callers mostly
> from addrconf.c. I don't mind getting reports from stable kernel users
> and fixing those, too (or help fixing those). ASSERT_RTNL is not
> dangerous.
>
> We had a long history in not correctly using rtnl lock in ipv6/multicast
> code and those wrongfully placed ASSERT_RTNLs were my bad when I fixed
> the duplicate address detection handling.
>
> If enough multicast addresses are subscribed to an interface we might
> again get those splats because enabling promisc mode on an interface
> will also check for rtnl lock.
>
Sure, I never doubt adding ASSERT_RTNL() is helpful, I just still think
this should be for net-next, or at least a separated patch. I don't want
my patch to be blamed in others' "Fixes:". :)
--
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