Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
Cong Wang <[email protected]> Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:40:30 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.trinity,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHA+R7MMe+O9-sNHQvgOO78tBzDy+hO+GtJFsuJPKx0eG6eMaw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa <[email protected]> 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:". :)