On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:49:33AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> --- netinet6/in6.c26 Aug 2014 21:44:29 - 1.140
> +++ netinet6/in6.c11 Sep 2014 08:45:29 -
> @@ -561,8 +560,10 @@ in6_control(struct socket *so, u_long cm
> }
>
> case SIOCDIFADDR_IN6:
> +
On 11/09/14(Thu) 10:49, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 03/09/14(Wed) 20:59, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:53:34PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > @@ -1078,7 +1079,7 @@ in6_purgeaddr(struct ifaddr *ifa)
> > > void
> > > in6_unlink_ifa(struct in6_ifaddr *ia6, struct ifnet *
On 03/09/14(Wed) 23:59, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:25:34PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Drivers that need a splnet() protection inside their SIOCSIFADDR
> > generally raise the spl level themselves, so we should not need
> > to do that in in{6,}_ifinit(). One exception
On 03/09/14(Wed) 20:59, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:53:34PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > @@ -1078,7 +1079,7 @@ in6_purgeaddr(struct ifaddr *ifa)
> > void
> > in6_unlink_ifa(struct in6_ifaddr *ia6, struct ifnet *ifp)
> > {
> > - int s = splnet();
> > + splsoft
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:25:34PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Drivers that need a splnet() protection inside their SIOCSIFADDR
> generally raise the spl level themselves, so we should not need
> to do that in in{6,}_ifinit(). One exception to this rule is,
> as always, carp(4)...
>
> So the
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:53:34PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> @@ -1078,7 +1079,7 @@ in6_purgeaddr(struct ifaddr *ifa)
> void
> in6_unlink_ifa(struct in6_ifaddr *ia6, struct ifnet *ifp)
> {
> - int s = splnet();
> + splsoftassert(IPL_SOFTNET);
>
> ifa_del(ifp, &ia6->ia_if
On 3 September 2014 15:53, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 03/09/14(Wed) 15:25, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>> Drivers that need a splnet() protection inside their SIOCSIFADDR
>> generally raise the spl level themselves, so we should not need
>> to do that in in{6,}_ifinit(). One exception to this rule is
On 03/09/14(Wed) 15:25, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Drivers that need a splnet() protection inside their SIOCSIFADDR
> generally raise the spl level themselves, so we should not need
> to do that in in{6,}_ifinit(). One exception to this rule is,
> as always, carp(4)...
>
> So the diff below moves t
Drivers that need a splnet() protection inside their SIOCSIFADDR
generally raise the spl level themselves, so we should not need
to do that in in{6,}_ifinit(). One exception to this rule is,
as always, carp(4)...
So the diff below moves the spl dance inside carp's SIOCSIFADDR
handler, it's a baby
