On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:17:26PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 29/06/22(Wed) 19:40, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> Note that some times the code checks for the RTF_LLINFO flags and some
> time for rt_llinfo != NULL. This is inconsistent and a bit confusing
> now that we use a mutex to protect tho
On 29/06/22(Wed) 19:40, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To fix the KASSERT(la != NULL) we have to protect the rt_llinfo
> with a mutex. The idea is to keep rt_llinfo and RTF_LLINFO consistent.
> Also do not put the mutex in the fast path.
Losing the RTM_ADD/DELETE race is not a bug. I would no
Hi,
To fix the KASSERT(la != NULL) we have to protect the rt_llinfo
with a mutex. The idea is to keep rt_llinfo and RTF_LLINFO consistent.
Also do not put the mutex in the fast path.
ok?
bluhm
Index: netinet/if_ether.c
===
RCS fil
