From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Aug 27 18:49:43 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BFA16A41F;
	Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:49:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from harmony.village.org (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073B943D48;
	Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:49:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j7RInMtG018111;
	Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:49:22 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:49:41 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20050827.124941.14976142.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: rwatson@FreeBSD.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050827184153.A24510@fledge.watson.org>
References: <20050827181827.O24510@fledge.watson.org>
	<20050827.114013.35047360.imp@bsdimp.com>
	<20050827184153.A24510@fledge.watson.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0
	(harmony.village.org [127.0.0.1]);
	Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:49:27 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org,
	dandee@volny.cz
Subject: Re: LOR route vr0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:49:43 -0000

In message: <20050827184153.A24510@fledge.watson.org>
            Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: 
: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: 
: > : Generally speaking, network interface device driver locks follow network
: > : stack locks in the lock order.  However, I've not really looked much at
: > : the route table locking so can't speak to whether that is the case
: > : specifically for routing locks.  If it is, the below traces reflect the
: > : correct order, and you might want to add a hard-coded entry to witness in
: > : order to catch the reverse order.
: >
: > Can you pose a quickie summary on how to do that? I tried last night and 
: > was unsuccessful...
: 
: You need to add an entry to subr_witness.c creating a graph edge between 
: the softc lock and the routing lock.  An example of an entry in 
: subr_witness.c:
: 
:          /*
:           * TCP/IP
:           */
:          { "tcp", &lock_class_mtx_sleep },
:          { "tcpinp", &lock_class_mtx_sleep },
:          { "so_snd", &lock_class_mtx_sleep },
:          { NULL, NULL },
: 
: Note that sets of ordered entries are terminated with a double-null.  This 
: declares that locks of type "tcp" preceed "tcpinp" which preceed 
: "so_snd".

So you have to have locks of type tcp BEFORE you take out tcpinp type
locks?

Warner