Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Bug\s+in\s+ipv6_ifa

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Bug\s+in\s+ipv6_ifa_notify\?\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:15:29 +1100; I'm reviewing the changes between 2.6.8.1 and 2.6.9. The following change caught my eye: structure. In particular, it changed the handling of RTM_NEWADDR in ipv6_ifa_notify. Previously if you receiv; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00268.html (8,861 bytes)
2. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: Malinen <jkmaline@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:34:42 +1100; Actually, it's easier than that. RTM_DELADDR will call ip6_del_rt which will free the rt using dst_free. Since it is still referenced it gets put on the gc list. The next RTM_NEWADDR will put it back; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00282.html (9,148 bytes)
3. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: Weber <uweber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:10:40 +1100; Actually, address objects dont't seem to be kept across interface down/up operations, so this probably can't happen... -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herb; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00286.html (9,132 bytes)
4. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx (Luis R. Rodriguez); Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:30:03 -0500 (EST); It used to (before http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/cset@41216bc8qWlBbT2LRIeGJegBQQxczg). But, it does not happen now; RTM_NEWADDR notification is called 1. when we has successfully finished DA; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00289.html (10,145 bytes)
5. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:37:41 +1100; 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; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00301.html (9,756 bytes)
6. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:48:39 +1100; 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 pat; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00333.html (10,250 bytes)
7. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: Dino) BOIE" <util@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:57:59 -0500 (EST); I think this only happens when you shut down interface while DAD; for example, "ifup eth0 &; ifdown eth0" or something like that. --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00341.html (9,905 bytes)
8. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:35:09 +1100; Exactly. However, since ifup doesn't wait for DAD to complete, you need something like 'ifup eth0; sleep 3; ifdown eth0' to trigger it. BTW, couldn't we move stuff like DAD to user-space? Cheers, --; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00345.html (9,627 bytes)
9. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:04:26 -0500 (EST); I don't think it is the right way. --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00348.html (9,031 bytes)
10. Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:15:29 +1100; Hi: I'm reviewing the changes between 2.6.8.1 and 2.6.9. The following change caught my eye: structure. In particular, it changed the handling of RTM_NEWADDR in ipv6_ifa_notify. Previously if you rec; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01322.html (8,906 bytes)
11. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:34:42 +1100; Actually, it's easier than that. RTM_DELADDR will call ip6_del_rt which will free the rt using dst_free. Since it is still referenced it gets put on the gc list. The next RTM_NEWADDR will put it back; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01336.html (9,251 bytes)
12. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:10:40 +1100; Actually, address objects dont't seem to be kept across interface down/up operations, so this probably can't happen... -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herb; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01340.html (9,264 bytes)
13. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:30:03 -0500 (EST); It used to (before http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/cset@41216bc8qWlBbT2LRIeGJegBQQxczg). But, it does not happen now; RTM_NEWADDR notification is called 1. when we has successfully finished DA; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01343.html (10,218 bytes)
14. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:37:41 +1100; 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; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01355.html (9,917 bytes)
15. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:48:39 +1100; 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 pat; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01387.html (10,438 bytes)
16. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:57:59 -0500 (EST); I think this only happens when you shut down interface while DAD; for example, "ifup eth0 &; ifdown eth0" or something like that. --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01395.html (10,020 bytes)
17. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:35:09 +1100; Exactly. However, since ifup doesn't wait for DAD to complete, you need something like 'ifup eth0; sleep 3; ifdown eth0' to trigger it. BTW, couldn't we move stuff like DAD to user-space? Cheers, --; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01399.html (9,842 bytes)
18. Re: Bug in ipv6_ifa_notify? (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:04:26 -0500 (EST); I don't think it is the right way. --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01402.html (9,160 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]