On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 18:05 +0200, Christian Kujau wrote: > but given the amount of changes currently > going into net/ I thought this might be interesting: > > [15604.137408] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (2595) > [15604.138807] [<c038c612>] __dev_set_promiscuity+0xc2/0xd0 > [15604.139163] [<c038c9bb>] dev_set_promiscuity+0x1b/0x40 > [15604.139515] [<f91cb3fb>] VNetBridgeStartPromisc+0x2b/0x50 [vmnet] Not sure why this would be interesting. Clearly, dev_set_promiscuity is called without the RTNL held while it should be. And see who the caller is? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
- From: Christian Kujau <[email protected]>
- RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
- Prev by Date: RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
- Next by Date: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
- Previous by thread: RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
- Next by thread: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
- Index(es):