From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 9 21:53:27 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BB016A41F; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:53:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.156.12.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E1943D58; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:53:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E86546B0F; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:56:42 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <200508091657.12032.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20050809225511.J84992@fledge.watson.org> References: <200508091657.12032.jhb@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , FreeBSD current mailing list , ume@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOR + panic in scope6.c X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:53:27 -0000 On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, John Baldwin wrote: >> Could it be a problem of ether_ifattach and ether_ifdetach being run >> without the driver locks? UP machine btw. > > I don't think it is a locking problem. I think that the inet6 code is > simply not taking into account some edge case. In theory I don't think > that if_afdata[AF_INET6] should be NULL since ether_ifattach() has > called inet6's domain attach routine. Are you sure that you have called > ether_ifattach() btw? At one point there existed a set of races where event timeouts for IPv6 would fire during the attaching of a network interface, and since the IPv6 init routines hadn't been called for the interface yet, pointers that were otherwise always non-NULL would be NULL. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those. The initialization/construction ordering for ifnets is probably not right yet, although it's getting better. Robert N M Watson