On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:40:47PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> The mess made me send an incorrect diff. In case that both if_ioctl()
> and rt_ifa_addlocal() fail, we could still end in an inconsistent
> sate.
>
> I think this is better. Still ok?
Yes, it's fine.
> bluhm
>
> Index:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 03:33:18PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 17/12/16(Sat) 07:52, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:33:37AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > > So in case of an error, remove the interface address to get a
> > > consistent state again.
>
> Haha, I have
On 17/12/16(Sat) 07:52, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:33:37AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If rt_ifa_addlocal() in in_ifinit() fails, the address has been
> > added to the interface address list, but the local route is missing.
> > This inconsistency can
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:33:37AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If rt_ifa_addlocal() in in_ifinit() fails, the address has been
> added to the interface address list, but the local route is missing.
> This inconsistency can result in a panic later.
>
> panic: kernel diagnostic
Hi,
If rt_ifa_addlocal() in in_ifinit() fails, the address has been
added to the interface address list, but the local route is missing.
This inconsistency can result in a panic later.
panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "ifa == rt->rt_ifa" failed: file
