Re: An ioctl to delete an ipv6 tunnel leads to a kernel panic

["Natalie Protasevich" <protasnb@gmail.com>]

On Feb 12, 2008 9:49 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: "Natalie Protasevich" <protasnb@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:49:12 -0800
>
> > Possible reason for this failure was identified and tested by the
> > submitter and several other reporters that ran into the same problem.
> > Can the patch be reviewed and pushed upstream if accepted (if the
> > problem hasn't been addressed already)?
>
> There are a lot of bogus patches in there, using funny
> long variable names, and mainly they were meant for testing
> and verification of the problem.
>
> I see no real serious patch submissions in that bug and furthermore
> the patch, if ready, should be submitted formally here to netdev not
> rot in bugzilla.
>
> Finally, what appears to be the proposal cannot be correct.  If the
> fib6_add_rt2node() finds that the new route is a duplicate, we should
> disconnect it from the fn->leaf and do a dst_release().  The bug
> appears to be rather that we leave the route attached to the fn, not
> that we drop the refrence to it.
>
> Thank you.

Thanks David for looking in this. I will give this thought to the
diligent reporters, unless someone on the net team can produce a patch
for them to test.
Sometimes reporters come up with patches and I always try to make sure
the patches end up on appropriate mailing list, and I will continue
doing so :)

Regards,
--Natalie
>