On 30.08.2018 19:10, David Ahern wrote: > On 8/30/18 10:11 AM, Alexey Kodanev wrote: ... >> unreferenced object 0xffff880b6aaa14e0 (size 64): >> comm "ip", pid 10577, jiffies 4295149341 (age 1273.903s) >> hex dump (first 32 bytes): >> 01 00 04 00 04 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ >> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ >> backtrace: >> [<0000000018664623>] lwtunnel_build_state+0x1bc/0x420 >> [<00000000b73aa29a>] ip6_route_info_create+0x9f7/0x1fd0 >> [<00000000ee2c5d1f>] ip6_route_add+0x14/0x70 >> [<000000008537b55c>] inet6_rtm_newroute+0xd9/0xe0 >> [<000000002acc50f5>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x66f/0x8e0 >> [<000000008d9cd381>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x268/0x3b0 >> [<000000004c893c76>] netlink_unicast+0x417/0x5a0 >> [<00000000f2ab1afb>] netlink_sendmsg+0x70b/0xc30 >> [<00000000890ff0aa>] sock_sendmsg+0xb1/0xf0 >> [<00000000a2e7b66f>] ___sys_sendmsg+0x659/0x950 >> [<000000001e7426c8>] __sys_sendmsg+0xde/0x170 >> [<00000000fe411443>] do_syscall_64+0x9f/0x4a0 >> [<000000001be7b28b>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe >> [<000000006d21f353>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > What test did you run to uncover this? Curious as to why my testing that > found the need for 80f1a0f4e0cd did not hit this.
I was using IPv6 route with MPLS. Will submit MPLS tests to LTP soon, they will include that test as well. Meanwhile, these commands below are able to trigger it: ip route add $new_route encap mpls 50 via inet6 $ip_rhost ping6 $ip_new_route ip route del $new_route Thanks, Alexey