On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 09:30:18PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
>
> How about this; Ignore entries addrconf_dst_alloc'ed entries in rt6_ifdown()?
Great, that definitely fixes the local address problem.
I'm not sure about anycast routes though. Who's going to delete them
when th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:41:45 +1100), Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 09:45:59PM +1100, herbert wrote:
> >
> > Although I still think this is a bug, I'm now starting to suspect
> > that there is another bug around as well.
> >
> > The
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 09:45:59PM +1100, herbert wrote:
>
> Although I still think this is a bug, I'm now starting to suspect
> that there is another bug around as well.
>
> There is probably an ifp leak which in turn leads to a split dst
> leak that allows the first bug to make its mark.
Found
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:55:19 +0100), Andre Tomt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> I'm contemplating just using it as a quick-fix until 2.6.11 to get this
> problem under control.
Would you find if my patch works? Thanks.
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: sen
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:38:13PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
It is just the first such thing I found, scanning rt6i_idev uses
will easily find several others.
You're right of course. I thought they were all harmless but I was
obviously wrong about this one.
So here is a patc
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 02:50:07PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
>
> Which means in addrconf_notiry(), if the dev == &loopback_dev,
> call addrconf_ifdown for every device like this:
This should fix the reported issue. However, I'm not sure if it's
a good idea to stop all IP traf
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 02:31:07PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
>
> Here, lo is going down.
> rt->rt6i_dev = lo and rt->rt6i_idev = ethX.
> I think we already see dst->dev == dev (==lo) now.
> So, I doubt that fix the problem.
>
> The source of problem is entry (*) which still o
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 08:10:44PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> > Alternatively we can
> > remove the dst->dev == dev check in dst_dev_event and dst_ifdown
> > and move that test down to the individual ifdown functions.
>
> I think there is a hole in this idea maybe.
>
> If the idea is
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 09:04:11PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> Oh I see. That would work, and it seems the simplest, and
> lowest risk fix for this problem.
>
> Herbert, what do you think?
Yes I agree.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:31:07 +0900 (JST)),
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> The source of problem is entry (*) which still on routing entry,
> not on gc list. And, the owner of entry is not routing table but
> unica
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:04:11 -0800), "David S.
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:37:23 +0900 (JST)
> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How about making dst->ops->dev_check() like this:
> >
> > static
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:37:23 +0900 (JST)
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about making dst->ops->dev_check() like this:
>
> static int inline dst_dev_check(struct dst_entry *dst, struct net_device *dev)
> {
> if (dst->ops->dev_check)
> r
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:02:42 -0800), "David S.
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > Yes, IPv6 needs "split device" semantics
> > (for per-device statistics such as Ip6InDelivers etc),
> > and I like later solution.
>
> Ok. I never read whether ipv6, like ipv4, is
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:10:44 -0800), "David S.
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > Alternatively we can
> > remove the dst->dev == dev check in dst_dev_event and dst_ifdown
> > and move that test down to the individual ifdown functions.
>
> I think there is a hol
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:46:43 +1100
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This doesn't work because net/core/dst.c can only search based
> on dst->dev. For the split device case, dst->dev is set to
> loopback_dev while rt6i_idev is set to the real device.
Indeed. I didn't catch that.
> If we w
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:50:39 +0900 (JST)
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:46:43 +1100), Herbert
> Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > If we wanted to preserve the split device semantics, then we
> > can crea
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 08:39:00PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
>
> I think "Make loopback idev stick around" patches
> (for IPv4 and IPv6) could be start of that.
Unfortunately that patch can't fix this particular problem. This
problem will show up whenever there is a dst on th
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 07:50:39PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
>
> Yes, IPv6 needs "split device" semantics
> (for per-device statistics such as Ip6InDelivers etc),
> and I like later solution.
OK. Is there any reason why IPv4 should be different from IPv6 in
this respect thoug
Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Mirko Parthey wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:22:02PM +0100, wrote:
My Debian machine hangs during shutdown, with messages like this:
unregister_netdevice: waiting for br0 to become free. Usage count = 1
I narrowed it down to the command
# brctl delbr br0
which
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:48:15 +0100), Andre Tomt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > Please tell me, why your lo is down...
:
> "ifdown -a" gets run on shutdown and reboot here, and ifdown -a in
> Debian brings down loopback before any other interfaces.
Okay, thanks. (I
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:14:04 +0100), Andre Tomt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> This patch fixes my problems with hangs when dot1q VLAN interfaces gets
> removed when loopback is down, as reported in the thread "2.6.10
> ipv6/8021q lockup on vconfig on interface remo
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:38:13PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
It is just the first such thing I found, scanning rt6i_idev uses
will easily find several others.
You're right of course. I thought they were all harmless but I was
obviously wrong about this one.
So here is a patc
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 05:46:43PM +1100, herbert wrote:
>
> This doesn't work because net/core/dst.c can only search based
> on dst->dev. For the split device case, dst->dev is set to
> loopback_dev while rt6i_idev is set to the real device.
Although I still think this is a bug, I'm now startin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:46:43 +1100), Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> If we wanted to preserve the split device semantics, then we
> can create a local GC list in IPv6 so that it can search based
> on rt6i_idev as well as the other keys. Alternatively we can
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:13:44PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> But Herbert, let's take a step back real quick because I want
> to point something out. IPv6 does try to handle the dangling
> mismatched idev's, in route.c:ip6_dst_ifdown(), this is called
> via net/core/dst.c:dst_ifdown(), and
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:11:10 +1100
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right of course. I thought they were all harmless but I was
> obviously wrong about this one.
>
> So here is a patch that essentially reverts the split devices
> semantics introduced by these two changesets:
>
>
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:38:13PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> It is just the first such thing I found, scanning rt6i_idev uses
> will easily find several others.
You're right of course. I thought they were all harmless but I was
obviously wrong about this one.
So here is a patch that ess
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 16:24:07 +1100
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the key to the problem.
...
> All of these bugs stem from the idev reference held in rtable/rt6_info.
...
> Anyway, this particular problem is due to IPv6 adding local addresses
> with split devices. That is, rout
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 04:22:02PM +, Mirko Parthey wrote:
>
> How to reproduce the problem (I tried this on a Pentium 4 machine):
>
> boot: linux init=/bin/bash
> [...booting...]
> # mount proc -t proc /proc
> # ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
> # brctl addbr br0
> # modprobe e100 # also rep
Mirko Parthey wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:22:02PM +0100, wrote:
My Debian machine hangs during shutdown, with messages like this:
unregister_netdevice: waiting for br0 to become free. Usage count = 1
I narrowed it down to the command
# brctl delbr br0
which does not return in the circums
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:22:02PM +0100, wrote:
> My Debian machine hangs during shutdown, with messages like this:
> unregister_netdevice: waiting for br0 to become free. Usage count = 1
>
> I narrowed it down to the command
> # brctl delbr br0
> which does not return in the circumstances sho
Mirko Parthey wrote:
My Debian machine hangs during shutdown, with messages like this:
unregister_netdevice: waiting for br0 to become free. Usage count = 1
I narrowed it down to the command
# brctl delbr br0
which does not return in the circumstances shown below.
The problem is reproducible with
My Debian machine hangs during shutdown, with messages like this:
unregister_netdevice: waiting for br0 to become free. Usage count = 1
I narrowed it down to the command
# brctl delbr br0
which does not return in the circumstances shown below.
The problem is reproducible with both 2.6.11-rc2 fr
33 matches
Mail list logo
