From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754947AbaIBTC5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:02:57 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:36719 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753889AbaIBTCy (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:02:54 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: yeS+c475l8qvYkGNWfGLbpPi6IP1BUqIJ5qxzghRbv5O 1409684573 Message-ID: <1409684570.15984.6.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699) From: Hannes Frederic Sowa To: Cong Wang Cc: Sabrina Dubroca , Tommi Rantala , "David S. Miller" , Alexey Kuznetsov , James Morris , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , Patrick McHardy , netdev , LKML , trinity@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jones Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:02:50 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20140829195339.GA9780@kria> <1409363489.2980.17.camel@localhost> <1409680684.972417.162793869.03CF8A61@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1409681914.978561.162800349.5A7FA784@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-3.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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:". :) Come on, that's why we have community review. Nobody blames anyone because of added regressions. It's more a fault of the community then, and it works out fairly good I think! Even others are keen on fixing your bugs sometimes. ;) 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 to find because it dates back to the beginning of the git history IMHO. Bye, Hannes