Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 01:40:55 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: pf@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 279899] pf_unlink_state mutex unlock page fault panic Message-ID: <bug-279899-16861-bBjMXgfVTO@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-279899-16861@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-279899-16861@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D279899 --- Comment #14 from Zhenlei Huang <zlei@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Franco Fichtner from comment #13) > Bisecting this is a little tricky due to the random nature but I think it= 's the > backport of > > https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=3D2671bde99295d9 > > which now runs pfsync_drop() which is what happens when you don't use pfs= ync which > didn't happen before as the commit suggests. Yes, your analysis is right. > INVARIANTS appears to trip over: >=20 > panic: pfsync_drop: st->sync_state =3D=3D q >=20 > without INVARIANTS it just continues and let's this crash at pf_unlink_st= ate() later on. Yes. Exactly. > Maybe it's wrong but I also don't appreciate the lack of enthusiasm looki= ng into > fixing regressions on stable branches. At least there is enough informati= on on the > table already to do something but I don't see any engagement. > > Cheers, > Franco Sorry for that. I have busy days. I tried to repeat but failed. Maybe I have wrong configuration of if_pfsync. May Daniel, Gyver, or you share a minimal setup? This should be repeated al= so on main IMO. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-279899-16861-bBjMXgfVTO>