From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:42:14 +1100
> OK this is definitely broken. We should never touch the dst lock in
> softirq context. Since inet6_destroy_sock may be called from that
> context due to the asynchronous nature of sockets, we can't take the
> lock there.
* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:24:32PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > [] _write_lock+0x8/0x10
> > [] inet6_destroy_sock+0x25/0x100
> > [] tcp_v6_destroy_sock+0x12/0x20
> > [] inet_csk_destroy_sock+0x4a/0x150
> > [] tcp_rcv_state_process+0xd4c/0xdd0
>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:24:32PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> [] _write_lock+0x8/0x10
> [] inet6_destroy_sock+0x25/0x100
> [] tcp_v6_destroy_sock+0x12/0x20
> [] inet_csk_destroy_sock+0x4a/0x150
> [] tcp_rcv_state_process+0xd4c/0xdd0
> [] tcp_v4_do_rcv+0xa9/0x340
> [] tcp_v4_rcv+0x8eb/0x9d
