On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:01:13 -0800 Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > >That's bond_lock. > > > >This patch (below) addresses what appears to me to be an obvious > >imbalance in rtnl_lock. > > > >I don't care how it's fixed, really. Someone please fix it? > > I posted a correct patch for this a few days ago: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=119975746803886&w=2 > > The correct fix requires more than simply removing the rtnl calls. > > I've got a few other patches in the pipeline, so I'm planning to > repost the set the above patch was a part of plus a few others, most > likely tomorrow. Can we get this bug fixed please? Today? It has been known about for more than two months. I can only assume that people don't use this feature much because this bug will kill your kernel, every time. Applying this: --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix +++ a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c @@ -1111,8 +1111,6 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(str out: write_unlock_bh(&bond->lock); - rtnl_unlock(); - return count; } static DEVICE_ATTR(primary, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, bonding_show_primary, bonding_store_primary); is better than doing nothing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
