From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 22 02:53:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC9B16A4CE for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:53:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from green.homeunix.org (pcp04368961pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [69.140.212.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17FC43D54 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:53:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from green@green.homeunix.org) Received: from green.homeunix.org (green@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.homeunix.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i8M2rT1I069509; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:53:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green@green.homeunix.org) Received: (from green@localhost) by green.homeunix.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i8M2rLLN069508; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:53:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:53:20 -0400 From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman To: "George V. Neville-Neil" Message-ID: <20040922025320.GF84424@green.homeunix.org> References: <20040922020957.GE84424@green.homeunix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv6 route mutex recursion (crash) and fix X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:53:30 -0000 On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:43:17AM +0900, George V. Neville-Neil wrote: > At Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:09:57 -0400, > Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > > > I've already made noise about this before, so I'll be brief. I plan on > > committing the following fix that prevents the routing code from being > > recursed upon such that RTM_RESOLVE causes the embryonic new route to > > be looked up again. I realize that probably no one will bother trying > > to see this bug in action, but all you need to do is send some UDP6 to > > ff02::1% as a user, with INVARIANTS turned on. > > > > Are there any objections? It would be nice to have this in 5-STABLE, > > in case anyone actually wants to have IPv6. > > Unless I am missing something (I have not applied the patch) it's not > doing anything. What does the new code actually do? > > I'll try to try this patch out later. Sorry, I should have provided a higher number of lines of context. It prevents a call to nd6_lookup() and reentry into the route table when entered via RTM_RESOLVE. I.e. nd6_rtrequest(), nd6_is_addr_neighbor(), nd6_lookup(). I appreciate you looking at it; I've had the problem for a year and no one bothered to really look at it. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\