On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
wrote:
>
> If fixes tag is well researched, it won't point to the addition of
> ASSERT_RTNL() but your patch would help to discover a bug somewhere else
> in the stack.
>
> I think for this patch a fixes-tag is hard to find because it is hard
On 09/02/2014 02:15 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:04 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
>>
I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I wanted
a
On Di, 2014-09-02 at 11:40 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> 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
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
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
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:15 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> That is what we do when backporting patches, I can do that if David asks
>> me to backport it, but you know for netdev that is David's work.
>>
>> (I am not saying I don't want to help
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:15 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> That is what we do when backporting patches, I can do that if David asks
> me to backport it, but you know for netdev that is David's work.
>
> (I am not saying I don't want to help him, I just want to point out the fact.
> I am very pleased
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 20:04, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> wrote:
> > Hi Cong,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 18:50, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Also rtnl_lock and
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:04 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
>
>> > I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I wanted
>> > a minimal patch for stable because I didn't
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:04 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> > I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I wanted
> > a minimal patch for stable because I didn't check history where and when
> > additional users of
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
wrote:
> Hi Cong,
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 18:50, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Also rtnl_lock and rcu_read_lock compose in that order, so we don't need
>> > to change
Hi Cong,
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 18:50, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> wrote:
> >
> > Also rtnl_lock and rcu_read_lock compose in that order, so we don't need
> > to change dev_get_by_flags, but as this is the only user it sure is
> > possible. RCU
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
wrote:
>
> Also rtnl_lock and rcu_read_lock compose in that order, so we don't need
> to change dev_get_by_flags, but as this is the only user it sure is
> possible. RCU locked version is just easier composeable, so I wouldn't
> touch that if
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
Also rtnl_lock and rcu_read_lock compose in that order, so we don't need
to change dev_get_by_flags, but as this is the only user it sure is
possible. RCU locked version is just easier composeable, so I
Hi Cong,
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 18:50, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
Also rtnl_lock and rcu_read_lock compose in that order, so we don't need
to change dev_get_by_flags, but as this is the only user it sure is
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
Hi Cong,
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 18:50, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
Also rtnl_lock and rcu_read_lock compose in that order,
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:04 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I wanted
a minimal patch for stable because I didn't check history where and when
additional users of
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:04 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I wanted
a minimal patch for stable because I
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 20:04, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
Hi Cong,
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 18:50, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:15 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
That is what we do when backporting patches, I can do that if David asks
me to backport it, but you know for netdev that is David's work.
(I am not saying I don't want to help him, I just want to point out the fact.
I am very pleased to
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:15 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
That is what we do when backporting patches, I can do that if David asks
me to backport it, but you know for netdev that is David's work.
(I am not saying I don't
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.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
On Di, 2014-09-02 at 11:40 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.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
On 09/02/2014 02:15 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Eric Dumazet eric.duma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:04 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
If fixes tag is well researched, it won't point to the addition of
ASSERT_RTNL() but your patch would help to discover a bug somewhere else
in the stack.
I think for this patch a fixes-tag is hard to find
Hi,
On Sa, 2014-08-30 at 12:58 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2014-08-30, 03:51:29 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > Hi Sabrina,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Sorry, just had time to look at this.
> >
> > The reason is not to have list corruption but that the calls down to
> > ndo_set_rx_mode
Hi,
On Sa, 2014-08-30 at 12:58 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
2014-08-30, 03:51:29 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Hi Sabrina,
[...]
Sorry, just had time to look at this.
The reason is not to have list corruption but that the calls down to
ndo_set_rx_mode expect rtnl to be
2014-08-30, 12:58:21 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
>- pndisc_constructor, called from pneigh_lookup -- pneigh_lookup
> has ASSERT_RTNL(), but pneigh_lookup is called from ip6_forward and
> ndisc_recv_na
Ah, these have creat = 0, so it's fine. I missed that earlier.
Sorry for the
Hello,
2014-08-30, 03:51:29 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Hi Sabrina,
>
> [...]
>
> Sorry, just had time to look at this.
>
> The reason is not to have list corruption but that the calls down to
> ndo_set_rx_mode expect rtnl to be locked by the drivers. Filter lists
> are locked by
2014-08-29, 15:54:48 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> [...]
>
> You are absolutely right here.
>
> Can I have your Signed-off-by and Tested-by before sending the patch
> formally?
>
> Thanks!
Sure:
Signed-off-by: Sabrina Dubroca
Tested-by: Sabrina Dubroca
Thanks,
--
Sabrina
--
To unsubscribe
2014-08-29, 15:54:48 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
[...]
You are absolutely right here.
Can I have your Signed-off-by and Tested-by before sending the patch
formally?
Thanks!
Sure:
Signed-off-by: Sabrina Dubroca s...@queasysnail.net
Tested-by: Sabrina Dubroca s...@queasysnail.net
Thanks,
Hello,
2014-08-30, 03:51:29 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Hi Sabrina,
[...]
Sorry, just had time to look at this.
The reason is not to have list corruption but that the calls down to
ndo_set_rx_mode expect rtnl to be locked by the drivers. Filter lists
are locked by
2014-08-30, 12:58:21 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
- pndisc_constructor, called from pneigh_lookup -- pneigh_lookup
has ASSERT_RTNL(), but pneigh_lookup is called from ip6_forward and
ndisc_recv_na
Ah, these have creat = 0, so it's fine. I missed that earlier.
Sorry for the
Hi Sabrina,
On Fr, 2014-08-29 at 21:53 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2014-08-29, 11:14:48 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tommi Rantala wrote:
> > > [ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
> > > [ 77.29
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2014-08-29, 11:14:48 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tommi Rantala wrote:
>> > [ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
>> > [ 77.298080] CPU: 0 P
2014-08-29, 11:14:48 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tommi Rantala wrote:
> > [ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
> > [ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID: 4842 Comm: trinity-main Not tainted 3.17.0-rc2+
> > #30
> > [
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tommi Rantala wrote:
> [ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
> [ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID: 4842 Comm: trinity-main Not tainted 3.17.0-rc2+ #30
> [ 77.299039] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> [
s alive.
> [ 77.229699] sctp: [Deprecated]: trinity-main (pid 4842) Use of int
> in max_burst socket option deprecated.
> [ 77.229699] Use struct sctp_assoc_value instead
> [ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
> [ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID: 4842 C
socket option deprecated.
[ 77.229699] Use struct sctp_assoc_value instead
[ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
[ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID: 4842 Comm: trinity-main Not tainted 3.17.0-rc2+ #30
[ 77.299039] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
[ 77.299789
socket option deprecated.
[ 77.229699] Use struct sctp_assoc_value instead
[ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
[ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID: 4842 Comm: trinity-main Not tainted 3.17.0-rc2+ #30
[ 77.299039] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
[ 77.299789
: [Deprecated]: trinity-main (pid 4842) Use of int
in max_burst socket option deprecated.
[ 77.229699] Use struct sctp_assoc_value instead
[ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
[ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID: 4842 Comm: trinity-main Not tainted 3.17.0-rc2+ #30
[ 77.299039
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tommi Rantala tt.rant...@gmail.com wrote:
[ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
[ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID: 4842 Comm: trinity-main Not tainted 3.17.0-rc2+ #30
[ 77.299039] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
2014-08-29, 11:14:48 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tommi Rantala tt.rant...@gmail.com wrote:
[ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
[ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID: 4842 Comm: trinity-main Not tainted 3.17.0-rc2+
#30
[ 77.299039
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Sabrina Dubroca s...@queasysnail.net wrote:
2014-08-29, 11:14:48 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tommi Rantala tt.rant...@gmail.com wrote:
[ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
[ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID
Hi Sabrina,
On Fr, 2014-08-29 at 21:53 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
2014-08-29, 11:14:48 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tommi Rantala tt.rant...@gmail.com wrote:
[ 77.297196] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
[ 77.298080] CPU: 0 PID: 4842
44 matches
Mail list logo
