From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 22 02:44:12 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 62C4316A4CE; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:44:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FED743D2D; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:44:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) i8M2hLr2002408; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:43:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from minion.local.neville-neil.com (pc1.oakwoodazabu1-unet.ocn.ne.jp [220.110.140.201]) by mail.meer.net (8.12.1/8.12.2/meer) with ESMTP id i8M2hJlS041865; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:43:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:43:17 +0900 Message-ID: From: "George V. Neville-Neil" To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman In-Reply-To: <20040922020957.GE84424@green.homeunix.org> References: <20040922020957.GE84424@green.homeunix.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.5 Emacs/21.2 (powerpc-apple-darwin) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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 02:44:12 -0000 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. Later, George