From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 29 09:24:22 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from green.bikeshed.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFDB16A4CF; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from green.bikeshed.org (green@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bikeshed.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBTHOLnU006778; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:24:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from green@green.bikeshed.org) Received: from localhost (green@localhost)hBTHOJhr006775; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:24:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312291724.hBTHOJhr006775@green.bikeshed.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: net@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: Message from Brian Fundakowski Feldman of "Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:46:16 EST." From: "Brian F. Feldman" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:24:19 -0500 Sender: green@green.bikeshed.org cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IPv6 locking crash (recursion) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:24:22 -0000 Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > Has anyone else tried out the most basic IPv6 test: ndp -I and > then ping6 fe80:: extension>? I was > greeted by recursion on a non-recursive lock. After some sleuthing, > I tried to determine what conditions could be tested for that would > indicate "this must not call the nd6_is_addr_neighbor() call because > we're from a normal RTM_RESOLVE initializing a new route", and this > is the most correct thing I can come up with. It actually would do > something entirely different if recursion were allowed. Comments? > > Index: nd6.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /u/FreeBSD-cvs/src/sys/netinet6/nd6.c,v > retrieving revision 1.37 > diff -u -r1.37 nd6.c > --- nd6.c 8 Nov 2003 23:36:32 -0000 1.37 > +++ nd6.c 26 Nov 2003 13:45:45 -0000 > @@ -1095,7 +1095,8 @@ > > if (req == RTM_RESOLVE && > (nd6_need_cache(ifp) == 0 || /* stf case */ > - !nd6_is_addr_neighbor((struct sockaddr_in6 *)rt_key(rt), ifp))) { > + ((!(rt->rt_flags & RTF_WASCLONED) || rt->rt_flags & RTF_LLINFO) && > + !nd6_is_addr_neighbor((struct sockaddr_in6 *)rt_key(rt), ifp)))) { > /* > * FreeBSD and BSD/OS often make a cloned host route based > * on a less-specific route (e.g. the default route). Does anyone know anything about this yet?? I get the crash using completely legitimate methods, trying to receive packets that are directed explicitly to ff02::1%wi0 via interface wi0, unless I enable this workaround. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\