Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:18:16 -0700 From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Panic in nd6_slowtimo() Message-ID: <m2smardkiv.wl@minion.local.neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <200408131618.43129.max@love2party.net> References: <20040812171410.GA91666@neo.redjade.org> <20040813073216.3f09e114.sebastian.ssmoller@gmx.net> <m21xibfvc4.wl@minion.local.neville-neil.com> <200408131618.43129.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:18:32 +0200, Max Laier wrote: > Obviously it does. The original report mentions current as of > yesterday (Aug, 12th). Oops, I only noted the January date. > > trying to fix up the IPv6 code. I am running IPv6 on several machines > > (CURRENT and STABLE) and have yet to see this. I am also using > > neighbor discovers (nd) extensively. > > Could you also load pf in one of these boxes, just to check if it > triggers the panic? I'll try that tonight (PDT). > Anyhow, the timeout is initialized unconditionally and it runs > unconditionally over all interfaces present. At least that's my > reading so far. The only problem I see is the mutex-trickery in > if_attachdomain1. But as the original report indicates > if_afdata_initialized was set to 1, so the last culprit can be in > the domain.dom_ifattach() function. I'll check. Later, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2smardkiv.wl>