From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 20 12:31:35 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFCF1065670; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:31:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F34F8FC12; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA7E7B941; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:31:34 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Randall Stewart Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:43:55 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p17; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201208170551.q7H5pkd1025308@svn.freebsd.org> <201208170826.25123.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201208200743.55498.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r239353 - head/sys/netinet X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:31:35 -0000 On Saturday, August 18, 2012 5:31:24 am Randall Stewart wrote: > Note that in the main FreeBSD sources however, the fact that ip_input.c d= oes *not* lock > when it looks at the hash table these lines are removing from here means = there is still a potential > for a crash. I have a fix for this that does not require the lock, when I= get a moment > I will send it your way=85 you have seen part of it ;-) Heh, that is probably true, I just think that moving the ifa_free() around here doesn't help to solve those crashes. You are just as vulnerable no matter where they are performed. =2D-=20 John Baldwin