On Fr, 2014-09-05 at 11:58 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:29:29 +0200 > > > >> Calling setsockopt with IPV6_JOIN_ANYCAST or IPV6_LEAVE_ANYCAST > >> triggers the assertion in addrconf_join_solict()/addrconf_leave_solict() > >> > >> ipv6_sock_ac_join(), ipv6_sock_ac_drop(), ipv6_sock_ac_close() need to > >> take RTNL before calling ipv6_dev_ac_inc/dec. Same thing with > >> ipv6_sock_mc_join(), ipv6_sock_mc_drop(), ipv6_sock_mc_close() before > >> calling ipv6_dev_mc_inc/dec. > >> > >> This patch moves ASSERT_RTNL() up a level in the call stack. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reported-by: Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks. > > I believe you applied a wrong version, at least the following > is not correct: > > + if (!dev) > + return -ENODEV; > > Sabrina took that from my draft patch, but they all don't > realize this is wrong. > > (I did provide a correct version which is just ignored by you.) What games are you playing? You know how patches are processed by David and I even let him the choice by pointing out a problem in your patch so that you could an update and send v2. I really feel miffed about your behavior! Anyway, I saw the hunk adding the return -ENODEV and didn't see any problems with it. Sure it might be better if it would gone into a separate patch. Can you elaborate what problems you see? Thanks, Hannes -- 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
