netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify?

To: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify?
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:57:59 -0500 (EST)
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041109114839.GA1942@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: USAGI Project
References: <20041108121040.GA3618@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041108203741.GA993@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041109114839.GA1942@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <20041109114839.GA1942@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Tue, 9 Nov 2004 
22:48:39 +1100), Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:

> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 07:37:41AM +1100, herbert wrote:
> > 
> > Well I've found a way for this to occur, but I must say that it is
> > fairly unlikely.  When you bring the interface down, addrconf_ifdown
> > will try to to delete the addrconf timer and then notify DELADDR.
> > Since it doesn't wait for the timer to complete, it might still be
> > executing.  Therefore it is possible to have a NEWADDR after a DELADDR
> > event.
> 
> The attractive thing about this theory is that it is an SMP-only
> race.  This could explain why only Jeff/Lennert are seeing it.
> 
> Jeff/Lennert, could you please go back to 2.6.9, and then apply
> this patch? If this warning triggers, then that would confirm
> this theory.

I think this only happens when you shut down interface while DAD;
for example, "ifup eth0 &; ifdown eth0" or something like that.

--yoshfuji


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>