On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Those ASSERT_RTNLs were misplaced and only caught the callers mostly > from addrconf.c. I don't mind getting reports from stable kernel users > and fixing those, too (or help fixing those). ASSERT_RTNL is not > dangerous. > > We had a long history in not correctly using rtnl lock in ipv6/multicast > code and those wrongfully placed ASSERT_RTNLs were my bad when I fixed > the duplicate address detection handling. > > If enough multicast addresses are subscribed to an interface we might > again get those splats because enabling promisc mode on an interface > will also check for rtnl lock. > Sure, I never doubt adding ASSERT_RTNL() is helpful, I just still think this should be for net-next, or at least a separated patch. I don't want my patch to be blamed in others' "Fixes:". :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe trinity" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
