On 6.6.2017. 13:03, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 05/06/17(Mon) 16:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>> On 05/06/17(Mon) 12:12, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>>> Routing sockets are not protected by the NET_LOCK(). That's one of the
>>> boundaries of the network stack. That's whhy claudio@ sent some diffs
>>> to no longer require the KERNEL_LOCK() to protect them.
>>>
>>> But right now some rtm_* functions can be executed without
>>> KERNEL_LOCK(). That's wrong. Diff below fixes that and move the
>>> KERNEL_LOCK() further down in rtrequest(9) since the NET_LOCK() is
>>> enough to protect the other data structures.
>>>
>>> The scariest bits come from default router advertisements, but I guess
>>> that slaacd(8) saved us ;)
>> Also change a KERNEL_ASSERT_LOCKED() into a NET_ASSERT_LOCK() in
>> rt_{set,put}gwroute(). Theses can now be called without KERNEL_LOCK()
>> when inserting an ARP entry.
> Hrvoje Popovski found the hard way that rtrequest(RTM_RESOLVE...) still
> need the KERNEL_LOCK() for malloc(9)/free(9).
Hi,
with this patch i can't trigger panic as before.
Thank you.
