From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:16:42 +0900 (JST)
> I hoped we could save some memory per fib6_node,
> but I'm fine with it.
I know, I did not want to add it either :(
Speaking of which, several of the potential fixes for the rt6_probe()
deadlock requ
Hello.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:44:36 -0700 (PDT)),
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> The fix for the most serious of them is below, and I'd appreciate
> any feedback if people spot any problems or holes in that approach.
I hoped we could save some memory pe
From: Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:40:30 +0100
> Seondly, I'm not sure I've fully understood why this round robin mechanism
> is needed to ensure as many routers as possible are probed as soon as
> possible.
...
> I'm just making sure we know what we're doing :-)
Ign
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-03-24 12:44
> As per RFC2461, section 6.3.6, item #2, when no routers on the
> matching list are known to be reachable or probably reachable we
> do round robin on those available routes so that we make sure
> to probe as many of them as possi
There are many, many, many severe SMP locking bugs in the ipv6
advanced routing selection code. I wish the author had thought about
these issues more carefully when writing that code because I'm now
stuck here fixing all of this :-/
The fix for the most serious of them is below, and I'd apprecia
