Re: [Bonding-devel] [BUG] kernel panic on ifconfig bond0 down

Re: [Bonding-devel] [BUG] kernel panic on ifconfig bond0 down

[Shmulik Hen]

On Wednesday 17 September 2003 11:44 pm, Ned Bass wrote:
> Note that the key to make the panic happen is step #3, bringing up
> the slave interface.  I realize that the slave interface is not
> supposed to be brought up prior to bringing up the bonding
> interface, but should probably not cause a kernel panic either :). 
> The panic occurs immediately after entering 'ifconfig bond0 down'.
> Also, the panic does not occur if I only enslave eth0 but not eth1.
>
>

There was a bug in patch 8 of the cleanup set that left a dangling 
pointer in bond_release_all(). Definitely may bad for not announcing 
that (and removing the patch set from SFG ?). I was relying on the 
fact that people won't test it after I announced the set needs to be 
re-done after finding a potential bug in patch 5.

I'm currently in the final stages of re-creating the set after 
implementing the bug fixes and doing some improvements resulting from 
internal code reviews. Perhaps this time I should publish it as an 
"experimental" patch set and give everyone a chance to try it out 
while our QA group grinds it to dust.

-- 
| Shmulik Hen   Advanced Network Services  |
| Israel Design Center, Jerusalem          |
| LAN Access Division, Platform Networking |
| Intel Communications Group, Intel corp.  |

Re: [Bonding-devel] [BUG] kernel panic on ifconfig bond0 down

[Jay Vosburgh]

>There was a bug in patch 8 of the cleanup set that left a dangling 
>pointer in bond_release_all(). Definitely may bad for not announcing 
>that (and removing the patch set from SFG ?). I was relying on the 
>fact that people won't test it after I announced the set needs to be 
>re-done after finding a potential bug in patch 5.
>
>I'm currently in the final stages of re-creating the set after 
>implementing the bug fixes and doing some improvements resulting from 
>internal code reviews. Perhaps this time I should publish it as an 
>"experimental" patch set and give everyone a chance to try it out 
>while our QA group grinds it to dust.

	I think there's still problems in the checked in code.  I did
my tests on 2.6.0-test5 plus 2.6.0-test5-bk2-netdrvr1, which doesn't
include the cleanup set, so there's at least one (potential sleep with
lock held in bond_mii_monitor()), possibly two, other bugs.  I'm
getting ready to do some tests with 2.4.23-pre4 to see what I find.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com