Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2018/08/11 15:57, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 2018/08/11 19:32, Sebastien Marie wrote: > > > > I am also > > > > unsure if loadfirmware() steal the slaacd context due to the use of > > > > `curproc'. > > > > > > since it was using ifconfig context (as seen with unveil) that seems > > > likely > > > > In the ps listing there is a * next to slaacd. > > > > This is not ifconfig's context. It crashed in pledge code, because it > > was a process which is pledged. Which is the slaacd master. > > > > It is a very tricky and fun bug. > > > > Ah. I had been thinking slaacd might bring the interface up like ifconfig > and dhclient do, but now I see that's not the case. Fun indeed!
I believe the kernel is implicitly bringing the interface up. I think ifconfig tweaks something, creating a route message. slaacd receives a route message, and then something happens which is running in slaacd's context but the traceback is muddled.
