From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernard F6BVP Subject: Re: instant oops with AF_ROSE Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 17:05:09 +0200 Message-ID: <4E186E25.5080200@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: wchast@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net Cc: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org Hi, What we do with ROSE nodes is to create a network allowing AX25 frames routing based on destination address. However, basically, ROSE frames are still AX.25 standard frames that can be sent over packet radio. In order to relay rose frames through Internet, applications like ax25ipd encapsulates rose inside of IP or UDP frames. I agree that rose module is still unfriendly and will crash linux kernel on some occasions. For example, after creating rose socket and populating rose routing table, removing rose module is not possible. There is either a kernel crash or a looping message kernel:unregister_netdevice: waiting for rose0 to become free. Usage count = 6 where count can be any number without any relation to actual usage and remaining the same, preventing Linux to shutdown. I noticed that there are no refcount entries in rose node or rose neigh structures. This may be related ? Bernard, f6bvp Chuck Hast wrote : It has been a while, and we were (still are I just am not active) using FPAC we have run a lot of IP through it, and never seemed to have a issue, but perhaps this is not quite in that area. I am sure Bernard will see this and pitch in with more info. I am just trying to figure out if we are taking two different pieces here. Here in FL I have ran both NetRom and IP over ROSE through FPAC boxes with no issues that I can remember. FPAC is a wrapper around the rose piece. We probably have people still doing IP inside ROSE through FPAC boxes around the state, not sure who or where, but it would not be a surprise to me because some use SMTP between their BBS devices. Bernard, any comments?