On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 05:36:55PM +, Jonathan A. Kollasch wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: jakllsch
> Date: Fri Apr 24 17:36:55 UTC 2020
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/netinet6: in6_proto.c
>
> Log Message:
> Fill in .pr_usrreqs for SOCK_SEQPACKET and SOCK_STREAM varia
On 22/04/2020 20:32, Roy Marples wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: roy
Date: Wed Apr 22 19:32:11 UTC 2020
Modified Files:
src/sys/netinet6: nd6_nbr.c
Log Message:
inet6: nd6_na_input() now considers ln_state <= ND6_LLINFO_INCOMPLETE
Otherwise if ln_state != ND6_LLINF
Now that's a simpler fix than I imagined it would be...
kre
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Roy Marples wrote:
On 27/08/2019 22:17, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
Is this necessary for -9 too?
Pretty much every BSD with IPv6.
I'll submit a PR for -9 in day or so.
I need to work this and a few other recent changes for -8 and maybe -7 also.
Cool. Thanks for all the
On 27/08/2019 22:17, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
Is this necessary for -9 too?
Pretty much every BSD with IPv6.
I'll submit a PR for -9 in day or so.
I need to work this and a few other recent changes for -8 and maybe -7 also.
Roy
Is this necessary for -9 too?
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, Roy Marples wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: roy
Date: Tue Aug 27 21:11:26 UTC 2019
Modified Files:
src/sys/netinet6: nd6.c
Log Message:
inet6: nd6_free assumes all routers are processed by kernel RA
This hasn't b
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:10 PM Patrick Welche wrote:
> Module Name:src
> Committed By: prlw1
> Date: Tue May 29 09:10:39 UTC 2018
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/netinet6: in6.c
> Log Message:
> Mark in6m as used for non-DIAGNOSTIC builds.
Oops! Thank you for the fix.
m...@netbsd.org wrote:
>Module Name:src
>Committed By: maxv
>Date: Tue Jan 30 15:54:03 UTC 2018
>
>Modified Files:
>src/sys/netinet6: in6.h ip6_input.c ip6_var.h
>
>Log Message:
>Style, localify, remove dead code, and fix typos. No functional change.
Please could we make i
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm going to change to use callout_stop because it seems using it
> is almost harmless in practical. See the below explanation (tl;dr).
Eventually we found a possible way to use callout_stop for (MP-)safe
destruction of callout. Please
Hi,
I'm going to change to use callout_stop because it seems using it
is almost harmless in practical. See the below explanation (tl;dr).
I investigated how using callout_stop affects and figured out
it can be problematic but the probability is quite low.
(That's why NetBSD 7 and earlier using c
On 27/12/2017 09:08, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
There are other paths. nd6_dad_stop is called from in6_purgeaddr,
in6_if_link_down and nd6_ioctl. nd6_dad_duplicated is called nd6_dad_timer,
nd6_dad_ns_input and nd6_dad_na_input.
I added the below assertion in my local repository and found
arp_dad_stopt
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Taylor R Campbell
> wrote:
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:31:25 +0900
>>> From: Ryota Ozaki
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Taylor R Campbell
>>> wrote:
>>> > Can you add this to the collection?
>>
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Taylor R Campbell
wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:31:25 +0900
>> From: Ryota Ozaki
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Taylor R Campbell
>> wrote:
>> > Can you add this to the collection?
>> >
>> > #ifdef NET_MPSAFE
>> > #define SOFTNET_INTERLOCK_IF_NET_
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:31:25 +0900
> From: Ryota Ozaki
>
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Taylor R Campbell
> wrote:
> > Can you add this to the collection?
> >
> > #ifdef NET_MPSAFE
> > #define SOFTNET_INTERLOCK_IF_NET_MPSAFE (&softnet_lock)
> > #else
> > #define SOFTNET_INTERLOCK_IF_MP
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Taylor R Campbell
wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:24:26 +0900
>> From: Ryota Ozaki
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Taylor R Campbell
>> wrote:
>> > Can you just pass the interlock -- softnet_lock or NULL, depending on
>> > NET_MPSAFE -- as an argumen
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:24:26 +0900
> From: Ryota Ozaki
>
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Taylor R Campbell
> wrote:
> > Can you just pass the interlock -- softnet_lock or NULL, depending on
> > NET_MPSAFE -- as an argument to nd6_dad_stoptimer? It looks like it
> > will trickle up into
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Taylor R Campbell
wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 18:42:14 +0900
>> From: Ryota Ozaki
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Paul Goyette wrote:
>> > I'd really like to see other peoples' opinions on this matter before
>> > making a final decision. (And I'm ra
> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 18:42:14 +0900
> From: Ryota Ozaki
>
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Paul Goyette wrote:
> > I'd really like to see other peoples' opinions on this matter before
> > making a final decision. (And I'm rather surprised that no-one else
> > has yet made any comments!)
>
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Paul Goyette wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>>>
> Well, since the lock _might_ be released (and subsequently reacquired)
> by callou
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
Well, since the lock _might_ be released (and subsequently reacquired)
by callout_halt(), it might be easiest to modify all the callers to
just unlock it befor
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>
>>> Well, since the lock _might_ be released (and subsequently reacquired)
>>> by callout_halt(), it might be easiest to modify all the callers to
>>> just unlock it before calling nd6_dad_stoptimer(),
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
Well, since the lock _might_ be released (and subsequently reacquired)
by callout_halt(), it might be easiest to modify all the callers to
just unlock it before calling nd6_dad_stoptimer(), and reacquire the
mutex after it returns (as well as re-establishi
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Paul Goyette wrote:
>>>
>>>
To generate a diff of this commit:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> # cvs rdiff -u -r1.139 -r1.140 src/sys/netinet6/nd6_nbr.c
>>> @@ -1097,7 +1097
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Paul Goyette wrote:
To generate a diff of this commit:
# cvs rdiff -u -r1.139 -r1.140 src/sys/netinet6/nd6_nbr.c
@@ -1097,7 +1097,11 @@ nd6_dad_stoptimer(struct dadq *dp)
#ifdef NET_MPSAFE
callout_halt(&dp-
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Paul Goyette wrote:
>
>> To generate a diff of this commit:
>
>
> # cvs rdiff -u -r1.139 -r1.140 src/sys/netinet6/nd6_nbr.c
> @@ -1097,7 +1097,11 @@ nd6_dad_stoptimer(struct dadq *dp)
> #ifdef NET_MPSAFE
> callout_halt(&dp->dad_timer_ch, NULL);
> #else
>
To generate a diff of this commit:
# cvs rdiff -u -r1.139 -r1.140 src/sys/netinet6/nd6_nbr.c
@@ -1097,7 +1097,11 @@ nd6_dad_stoptimer(struct dadq *dp)
#ifdef NET_MPSAFE
callout_halt(&dp->dad_timer_ch, NULL);
#else
- callout_halt(&dp->dad_timer_ch, softnet_lock);
+ /* XXX
comment fixed (CVS lines removed).
Sorry for the noise
Frank
On 05/13/17 22:13, Frank Kardel wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: kardel
Date: Sat May 13 20:13:27 UTC 2017
Modified Files:
src/sys/netinet6: mld6.c
Log Message:
avoid a double ifa_release() and thus a pa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:05:47 +0800 (PHT)
From: Paul Goyette
I don't think that's the correct fix - see my earlier messages on
current-users@
Sorry for the build breakage. My revert last night accidentally
included a tiny local change that was meant for illustration as a diff
on
I don't think that's the correct fix - see my earlier messages on
current-users@
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: christos
Date: Sat Jan 23 14:03:04 UTC 2016
Modified Files:
src/sys/netinet6: in6_gif.c
Log Message:
make this c
David Laight writes:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:31:39PM +, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Module Name: src
>> Committed By:gdt
>> Date:Mon Mar 18 19:31:39 UTC 2013
>>
>> Modified Files:
>> src/sys/netinet6: ip6_output.c
>>
>> Log Message:
>> Initialize variable used a
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:31:39PM +, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: gdt
> Date: Mon Mar 18 19:31:39 UTC 2013
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/netinet6: ip6_output.c
>
> Log Message:
> Initialize variable used as (conditional) result parameter.
>
> ip6_inse
Salut,
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:17:11PM +, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Log Message:
> Check if ndi is valid before use.
> ok tonnerre@
Just to mention: while this change is correct, it should IMO not
be necessary. The purge function should not be called if no ndi
is associated with the device.
Salut,
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 07:22:54AM +0200, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> > (Debated on tech-net@ before but almost two weeks passed by without any
> > comment on the patch.)
>
> There was one from David Young:
> Message-ID: <20090713160131.gg...@ojctech.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:01:31 -05
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:12:09PM +, Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: tonnerre
> Date: Sat Jul 25 23:12:09 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/netinet6: nd6.c nd6_rtr.c
>
> Log Message:
> Instead of using the net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv sysctl for a
>> That said, where we now return EPERM is where in the future we'll
>> return the error value returned by kauth(9), like many many other
>> places in the kernel. Other parts of the networking stacks (say,
>> opening a raw socket) now return EPERM instead of EACCES
>
> ip(4) a
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:12 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
wrote:
>> That said, where we now return EPERM is where in the future we'll
>> return the error value returned by kauth(9), like many many other
>> places in the kernel. Other parts of the networking stacks (say,
>> opening a raw socket) now retur
hi,
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
> wrote:
>
have you checked callers and ensure that the change from EACCES to EPERM
won't be a problem?
>>>
>>> Only ipsec_set_policy() returns EPERM instead of EACCES now, and I
>>> don't think it should be a problem.
>>
>> "don'
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
wrote:
>>> have you checked callers and ensure that the change from EACCES to EPERM
>>> won't be a problem?
>>
>> Only ipsec_set_policy() returns EPERM instead of EACCES now, and I
>> don't think it should be a problem.
>
> "don't think"? why not
hi,
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:18 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
> wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> have you checked callers and ensure that the change from EACCES to EPERM
>> won't be a problem?
>
> Only ipsec_set_policy() returns EPERM instead of EACCES now, and I
> don't think it should be a problem.
"don't think
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:18 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> hi,
>
> have you checked callers and ensure that the change from EACCES to EPERM
> won't be a problem?
Only ipsec_set_policy() returns EPERM instead of EACCES now, and I
don't think it should be a problem.
As for calling context -- I did
hi,
have you checked callers and ensure that the change from EACCES to EPERM
won't be a problem?
YAMAMOTO Takashi
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: elad
> Date: Thu May 7 21:51:47 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/netinet6: ip6_output.c ipsec.c
>
> Log Message:
> Remove s
41 matches
Mail list logo
