From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:50:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20070104085014.GA2500@ff.dom.local> References: <20070104080351.GA1740@ff.dom.local> <20070104082930.GB7006@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Stevens , greearb@candelatech.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx10.go2.pl ([193.17.41.74]:39470 "EHLO poczta.o2.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932328AbXADIse (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jan 2007 03:48:34 -0500 To: Herbert Xu Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070104082930.GB7006@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 07:29:30PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:03:51AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > I doubt this is the right solution. It certainly > > could fix this particular situation but my main > > point was packets shouldn't get into kernel > > receive queues with skb->dev not IFF_UP. > > I think you misunderstood. The device certainly is IFF_UP. What > happens is that the multicast spin locks are set up too late: Could you explain? I can see some inet_rtm_newaddr interrupted. For me it could be e.g.: after vconfig add eth0 9 ip addr add dev eth0.9 ... before ip link set dev eth0.9 up Jarek P.