Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > Mark Keaton <mkeaton%bbn.com@localhost> wrote: >> So, I am wondering if anyone knows if this is a bug in the kernel (i.e., >> "softnet_lock" should have been locked before calling ip6_output())? >> Or, am I not understanding the real locking strategy used by these >> functions? > > It should be locked by softnet_lock. Unfortunately, entry/exit paths into > the stack (and different parts of the stack, like in your example) are not > very well contained in this respect; softnet_lock is a big lock covering > paths across multiple layers, so it is easy to end up with a problem like > this. The ultimate goal is to dismantle softnet_lock. So should we be adding a comment to -current (and -6) about this, and fixing the current lack of locking? I understand that you're moving to more fine-grained locking without softnet_lock, but it seems good to make the current code reliable. How about a commented-out KASSERT for now in ip6_output?
Description: PGP signature