Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:56:42 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, FreeBSD current mailing list <current@freebsd.org>, ume@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOR + panic in scope6.c Message-ID: <20050809225511.J84992@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200508091657.12032.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0508091138160.90867@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0508091525430.90867@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0508091841000.90867@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <200508091657.12032.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050809225511.J84992>