Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)

[Cong Wang]

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:". :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/