On 10/3/19 11:19 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On 10/3/19 9:32 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Still no luck for me :/
>>
> One of the failing test was :
>
> unshare -n
> ./traceroute_test.sh -I icmp
>
thanks for the test. I need to chase down a few more code paths, but I
am thinking the proper next s
On 10/3/19 9:32 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> Still no luck for me :/
>
One of the failing test was :
unshare -n
./traceroute_test.sh -I icmp
$ cat ./traceroute_test.sh
#!/bin/bash
#
# Test traceroute.
#
# This is a test to run traceroute with the given parameters. It sets up three
# con
On 10/3/19 8:50 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/2/19 3:23 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> It seems we need to allow the code to do some changes if IF_READY is not set.
>>
>
> That statement was correct. Prior to the patch in question ifp->state is
> bumped to INET6_IFADDR_STATE_DAD in addrconf_da
On 10/2/19 3:23 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 10/2/19 2:08 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/1/19 11:18 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/30/19 8:28 PM, David Ahern wrote:
From: David Ahern
Rajendra reported a kernel panic when a link was taken down:
[ 687
On 10/2/19 6:36 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 10/2/19 5:10 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 10/2/19 4:36 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> This might be related to a use of a bonding device, with a mlx4 slave.
>>>
>>
>> does it only happen with bonds?
>
> All my hosts have bonds, some are just fine wit
On 10/2/19 5:10 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/2/19 4:36 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> This might be related to a use of a bonding device, with a mlx4 slave.
>>
>
> does it only happen with bonds?
All my hosts have bonds, some are just fine with your patch, but others are not.
>
> bond shows IF
On 10/2/19 4:36 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> This might be related to a use of a bonding device, with a mlx4 slave.
>
does it only happen with bonds?
bond shows IF_READY even though the underlying device is carrier down
which seems wrong; if a lower device is not carrier up then DAD does not
really
On 10/2/19 5:11 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 10/2/19 3:36 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/19 3:33 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I flipped to IF_READY based on addrconf_ifdown and idev checks seeming
>>> more appropriate.
>>>
>>
>
> Note that IF_READY is set in ipv6_add_dev() if
On 10/2/19 3:36 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 10/2/19 3:33 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>
>> I flipped to IF_READY based on addrconf_ifdown and idev checks seeming
>> more appropriate.
>>
>
Note that IF_READY is set in ipv6_add_dev() if all these conditions are true :
if (netif_running(dev)
On 10/2/19 3:33 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/2/19 4:21 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> o syzbot this time, but complete lack of connectivity on some of my test
>> hosts.
>>
>> Incoming IPv6 packets go to ip6_forward() (!!!) and are dropped there.
>
> what does 'ip -6 addr sh' show when it is in t
On 10/2/19 4:21 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> o syzbot this time, but complete lack of connectivity on some of my test
> hosts.
>
> Incoming IPv6 packets go to ip6_forward() (!!!) and are dropped there.
what does 'ip -6 addr sh' show when it is in this state? Any idea of the
order of events?
>
> T
On 10/2/19 3:13 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/2/19 3:23 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/19 2:08 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/1/19 11:18 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 9/30/19 8:28 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> From: David Ahern
>
> Rajendra reported a ke
On 10/2/19 3:23 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 10/2/19 2:08 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/1/19 11:18 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/30/19 8:28 PM, David Ahern wrote:
From: David Ahern
Rajendra reported a kernel panic when a link was taken down:
[ 687
On 10/2/19 2:08 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 10/1/19 11:18 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/30/19 8:28 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> From: David Ahern
>>>
>>> Rajendra reported a kernel panic when a link was taken down:
>>>
>>> [ 6870.263084] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer de
On 10/1/19 11:18 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 9/30/19 8:28 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> From: David Ahern
>>
>> Rajendra reported a kernel panic when a link was taken down:
>>
>> [ 6870.263084] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
>> 00a8
>> [ 6870.271856] IP
From: David Ahern
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 20:28:34 -0700
> From: David Ahern
>
> Rajendra reported a kernel panic when a link was taken down:
...
> addrconf_dad_work is kicked to be scheduled when a device is brought
> up. There is a race between addrcond_dad_work getting scheduled and
> taking
On 9/30/19 8:28 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> From: David Ahern
>
> Rajendra reported a kernel panic when a link was taken down:
>
> [ 6870.263084] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
> 00a8
> [ 6870.271856] IP: [] __ipv6_ifa_notify+0x154/0x290
>
>
>
Reviewed-
From: David Ahern
Rajendra reported a kernel panic when a link was taken down:
[ 6870.263084] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
00a8
[ 6870.271856] IP: [] __ipv6_ifa_notify+0x154/0x290
[ 6870.570501] Call Trace:
[ 6870.573238] [] ? ipv6_ifa_notify+0x26/0x40
18 matches
Mail list logo
