Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency

[Herbert Xu]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:46:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> yeah, it should have. In any case, things are looking good so far with 
> your fixes. (Any suggestions wrt. how to trigger as many different 
> codepaths in the networking code as possible, to increase coverage of 
> locking scenarios mapped? I've tried LTP so far, and a few ad-hoc tests.  
> Perhaps there's some IP protocol tester i should try, which is known to 
> trigger lots of boundary conditions?)

Two paths you might want to cover are netfilter and IPsec.  Both of these
can be tested by simply adding netfilter rules and IPsec policies/SAs and
then running the same test you were using before.

You might also want to look at multicast but I don't know of any good
tests for that.

Oh and then there are VLANs, bridging, Ethernet bonding, qdisc's, etc.
Again these can be tested by setting up the relevant devices or rules
and running the usual TCP/UDP tests.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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/