Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 05:49:31 +0000 From: Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/ipfilter/netinet ip_auth.c Message-ID: <20041227054931.GC20920@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20041226.222435.52824948.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20041226165927.GA18879@hub.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0412261707210.68472@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <20041226182537.GB20920@hub.freebsd.org> <20041226.222435.52824948.imp@bsdimp.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 10:24:35PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20041226182537.GB20920@hub.freebsd.org> > Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org> writes: > : On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 05:09:23PM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > : > [1] http://sources.zabbadoz.net/freebsd/lor.html#050 > : > : This would appear, to me, as deficencies in the witness code > : and that perhaps LORs, unless they are in the leadup to a system > : deadlock'ing, are just something to be ignored. > > Nearly all LORs could lead to system deadlock, especially in low > resource situations. It is highly doubtful that there's a problem in > witness. You should fix your code and not ignore the warning. As you say, "Nearly all", not "all". I believe the IPFilter ones fall outside of the "all" group. Given what I have seen the witness code do with LOR checking, it is trivial to write code that generates a LOR warning without ever being vulnerable to causing a system deadlock through resource problems. I believe the person who developed witness realised this in time and hence added the "blessed" option so tha twarnings would not be emitted for specific known safe cases. Darrenhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041227054931.GC20920>