protected by IF_ADDR_LOCK(), which was a mutex, so that two simultaneous
if_setlladdr() can't execute. Later it was switched to IF_ADDR_RLOCK(),
likely by a mistake. Later it was switched to NET_EPOCH_ENTER(). Then I
incorrectly added NET_EPOCH_ASSERT() here.
In reality ifp->if_addr never goes away and never changes its length. So,
doing bcopy() in it is always "safe", meaning it won't dereference a wrong
pointer or write into someone's else memory. Of course doing two bcopy() in
parallel would result in a mess of two addresses, but net epoch doesn't
protect against that, neither IF_ADDR_RLOCK() did.
So for now, just remove the assertion and leave for later a proper fix.
Reported by: markj
1e80e4f26c