From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:02:50 +0200
Message-ID: <1409684570.15984.6.camel@localhost>
References: <CA+ydwtoDwQVg_BWrxxdpUyJ7Up60GtxTCLYe_5vFdV2td_kGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAHA+R7MZCDGRhSf=UuVCGQvNo03wVziZQB_X30rwNf6hmHipQA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20140829195339.GA9780@kria> <1409363489.2980.17.camel@localhost>
	 <CAHA+R7ODa+LrdwSrS7HcBfwwq8_fpj-Ld0OCDtcOqkpCdZCvxg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1409680684.972417.162793869.03CF8A61@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	 <CAHA+R7Mwy1SCpEUgGf9BdLEro6N-3t89KU=xL0iuzgOppXELrQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1409681914.978561.162800349.5A7FA784@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	 <CAHA+R7MMe+O9-sNHQvgOO78tBzDy+hO+GtJFsuJPKx0eG6eMaw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>,
	Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@gmail.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, trinity@vger.kernel.org,
	Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Cong Wang <cwang@twopensource.com>
Return-path: <trinity-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHA+R7MMe+O9-sNHQvgOO78tBzDy+hO+GtJFsuJPKx0eG6eMaw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: trinity-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Di, 2014-09-02 at 11:40 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@stressinduktion.org> wrote:
> > Those ASSERT_RTNLs were misplaced and only caught the callers mostly
> > from addrconf.c. I don't mind getting reports from stable kernel users
> > and fixing those, too (or help fixing those). ASSERT_RTNL is not
> > dangerous.
> >
> > We had a long history in not correctly using rtnl lock in ipv6/multicast
> > code and those wrongfully placed ASSERT_RTNLs were my bad when I fixed
> > the duplicate address detection handling.
> >
> > If enough multicast addresses are subscribed to an interface we might
> > again get those splats because enabling promisc mode on an interface
> > will also check for rtnl lock.
> >
> 
> Sure, I never doubt adding ASSERT_RTNL() is helpful, I just still think
> this should be for net-next, or at least a separated patch. I don't want
> my patch to be blamed in others' "Fixes:". :)

Come on, that's why we have community review. Nobody blames anyone
because of added regressions. It's more a fault of the community then,
and it works out fairly good I think! Even others are keen on fixing
your bugs sometimes. ;)

If fixes tag is well researched, it won't point to the addition of
ASSERT_RTNL() but your patch would help to discover a bug somewhere else
in the stack.

I think for this patch a fixes-tag is hard to find because it is hard to
find because it dates back to the beginning of the git history IMHO.

Bye,
Hannes