David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the thing to do is to just leave the loopback references
> in place, try to unregister the per-namespace loopback device,
> and that will safely wait for all the references to go away.
Right. The only thing I have found that needs to be
Hello!
> I think the thing to do is to just leave the loopback references
> in place, try to unregister the per-namespace loopback device,
> and that will safely wait for all the references to go away.
Yes, it is exactly how it works in openvz. All the sockets are killed,
queues are cleared,
> Quoting Alexey Kuznetsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
>
> > Does this look sane (untested)?
>
> It does not, unfortunately.
>
> Instead of regular crash in infiniband you will get numerous
> rando
Hello!
> Does this look sane (untested)?
It does not, unfortunately.
Instead of regular crash in infiniband you will get numerous
random NULL pointer dereferences both due to dst->neighbour
and due to dst->dev.
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Hello!
> Well I don't think the loopback device is currently but as soon
> as we get network namespace support we will have multiple loopback
> devices and they will get unregistered when we remove the network
> namespace.
There is no logical difference. At the moment when namespace is gone
Hello!
Well I don't think the loopback device is currently but as soon
as we get network namespace support we will have multiple loopback
devices and they will get unregistered when we remove the network
namespace.
There is no logical difference. At the moment when namespace is gone
there is
Hello!
Does this look sane (untested)?
It does not, unfortunately.
Instead of regular crash in infiniband you will get numerous
random NULL pointer dereferences both due to dst-neighbour
and due to dst-dev.
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
Quoting Alexey Kuznetsov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
Does this look sane (untested)?
It does not, unfortunately.
Instead of regular crash in infiniband you will get numerous
random NULL pointer dereferences both due to dst-neighbour
Hello!
I think the thing to do is to just leave the loopback references
in place, try to unregister the per-namespace loopback device,
and that will safely wait for all the references to go away.
Yes, it is exactly how it works in openvz. All the sockets are killed,
queues are cleared, nobody
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the thing to do is to just leave the loopback references
in place, try to unregister the per-namespace loopback device,
and that will safely wait for all the references to go away.
Right. The only thing I have found that needs to be changed so
From: ebiederman@lnxi.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:30:39 -0600
> Sure. In the network namespace case I think the careful ordering of the
> shutdown handles that case. Even with per network namespace lo
> unregistered it still existed until the network namespace actually
>
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:42:34 +0200
>> > Hmm. Then the code moving dst->dev to point to the loopback
>> > device will have to be fixed too. I'll post a patch a bit later.
>>
>> Does this look sane
> Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
>
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:42:34 +0200
>
> > > Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin <[EM
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Why is neighbour->dev changed here?
>>
>> It holds reference to device and prevents its destruction.
>> If dst is held somewhere, we cannot destroy the device and deadlock
>> while unregister.
>
> BTW, can this ever happen for the loopback
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:42:34 +0200
> > Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
> >
> > > Quoting Eric W. Biederman :
>
> Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
>
> > Quoting Eric W. Biederman :
> > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
> >
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin&qu
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman :
> Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
>
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Why is neighbour->dev changed here?
> >>
> >> It holds reference to device
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ebiederman@lnxi.com:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is neighbour-dev changed here?
It holds reference to device and prevents its destruction.
If dst is held somewhere, we
Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ebiederman@lnxi.com:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is neighbour
From: Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:42:34 +0200
Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ebiederman@lnxi.com:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks
Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is neighbour-dev changed here?
It holds reference to device and prevents its destruction.
If dst is held somewhere, we cannot destroy the device and deadlock
while unregister.
BTW, can this ever happen for the loopback device itself?
Is
Quoting David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband?
From: Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:42:34 +0200
Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: dst_ifdown breaks
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Michael S. Tsirkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:42:34 +0200
Hmm. Then the code moving dst-dev to point to the loopback
device will have to be fixed too. I'll post a patch a bit later.
Does this look sane (untested)?
From: ebiederman@lnxi.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:30:39 -0600
Sure. In the network namespace case I think the careful ordering of the
shutdown handles that case. Even with per network namespace lo
unregistered it still existed until the network namespace actually
24 matches
Mail list logo
