Bruce M Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > > The reason those XLOG statements are FATAL is to capture bugs that > > might be hiding somewhere else. > > If you were able to trigger those statements, could you provide > > instructions how to reproduce the problem so we can investigate it. > > > > +1. > > Whilst Ben's patches are well intentioned, they do not fully address the > issues, and you correctly point out they most likely mask the underlying > issue. > > There is definitely a corner case in the first situation, where vifp may > be NULL and yet be dereferenced when is_deleted is true. This applies to > all netlink socket processing.
Yes, the NULL pointer dereferencing was a bug which is now fixed. > In the second situation, it looks like the case where the FEA is told of > a new interface event by Linux, for an interface which it doesn't know > about, this is treated as a fatal error by the FEA. The interface event is addition of a new address to an interface. Obviously, the kernel must first tell the FEA that an interface is added/exists and only then the "new address" event should be send. Hence, it is a mystery for me when/why the XLOG_FATAL() there is triggered. > It looks like this issue is also present in the PF_ROUTE support code. > > Now this reminds me of a situation I saw when testing out the > forthcoming OLSR code, under both FreeBSD and Linux. I haven't recorded > the details as it hasn't been an immediate priority, however it IS a > looming issue. > > Hot swapping an interface seems to have problems -- that is, if I fire > up a full XORP router with an OLSR process, remove its configuration for > an interface, add a new interface to the underlying system, and then > attempt to bring up OLSR on the new interface, the FEA does not > recognise the new interface. > > Looking at the code it appears this is the case. There's a clear need to > be able to add interfaces at runtime to support hot swapping of network > interfaces for both ad-hoc and classic routing protocols. > > Could we be looking at the same underlying issue? > > I was under the impression the FEA could deal with learning about new > interfaces at runtime, this evidence seems to suggest it doesn't and > needs fixing. Yes, the most recent code in CVS is suppose to work with hot-swapped interfaces. If you are hitting some errors/crashes this is probably because of some remaining bugs. Obviously, those bugs will remain in the code if they are not reported. Thanks, Pavlin _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
