Re: Frequent Oops on Shutdown 2.6.10

[AndyLiebman@aol.com]

For what it's worth, I believe I only get this  Oops if I have unplugged an 
Ethernet cable while running the server. 

I  have 4 Ethernet ports on the server -- and in fact I am testing and 
configuring  many servers  at the same time. All servers are set up with the exact 
same  image, and the same set of IP addresses. Sometimes for convenience, I 
unplug an  ethernet cable from one server and plug it into another server -- 
while they're  running -- so that I can operate a machine remotely (I never 
connect more than  one server to my network at a time, to avoid IP address 
conflicts). Unplugging  and plugging Ethernet cables while running ALWAYS leads to nmbd 
errors on  shutdown -- guaranteed -- but with the 2.6.6 kernel never an Oops. 
I only get an  Oops with the 2.6.10 kernel. 

I'm going to do a more rigorous test today  to see if the Oops behavior 
really is 100 percent correlated with unplugging and  plugging the Ethernet cable. 

So, should I test the patch? 

Andy  Liebman

-------------------------------------------------------OLD  MESSAGES BELOW 
--------
In a message dated 2/22/2005 5:17:19 A.M. Eastern  Standard Time, 
herbert@gondor.apana.org.au writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at  08:57:19PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ????  <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> wrote:
> > In article  <20050221.162241.24618885.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> (at Mon, 
21 Feb 2005  16:22:41 +0900 (JST)), YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ???? 
<yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>  says:
> > 
> >> [IPV6] Don't remove dev_snmp6 procfs entry  until all users gone.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see how this patch  explains the oops the
> people saw.

OK, I think I see what you were  trying to fix now.  Unfortunately
I think this patch doesn't quite cure  the problem.

First of all you can't sleep in snmp6_unregister_dev so  semaphores
are out.  More importantly, the race is still on.

Here  is what  happens:

CPU0                     CPU1
ifdown eth0
...
ifup  eth0
snmp6_register_dev
adds proc entry
in6_dev_finish_destroy
snmp6_unregister_dev
deletes new  proc entry

The next ifdown may fail because snmp6_unregister_dev will  retrieve the
name from a proc entry that's already been deleted.

I see  two solutions:

1) Unregister the proc entry earlier.  In other  words, do it in
addrconf_ifdown.  Since this is highly serialised it  means that
we can't add the new proc entry before the old proc entry  has
been deleted.

2) Fix procfs so that we delete by pointer instead  of name.  This
makes sense from a semantic pointer of view.   However, for this
particular instance it means that we may have two "eth0"  entries
for as long as the old idev entry sticks around.

Cheers,
--  
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu  ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page:  http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key:  http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt