From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 31 18:50:12 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891871065674 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:50:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7718FC26 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:50:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2VIoC0F014969 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:50:12 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o2VIoCE4014962; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:50:12 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:50:12 GMT Message-Id: <201003311850.o2VIoCE4014962@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.org From: Nathaniel W Filardo Cc: Subject: Re: kern/145211: Memory modified after free X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Nathaniel W Filardo List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:50:12 -0000 The following reply was made to PR sparc64/145211; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Nathaniel W Filardo To: bug-followup@freebsd.org Cc: Subject: Re: kern/145211: Memory modified after free Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:49:40 -0400 --vDpvzslK0qRw06MN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline It occurs to me to add that at least the second crash was correlated with a burst of traffic on bge2, which usually sits idle. FWIW, bge0 and bge3 are typically busy, and bge1 is not connected. Is it possible that this is a bge bug? I'll be recreating the busy-bge2 scenario to test other things anyway and will report should it trigger a panic again. While I'm recovering from filing an underinformative bug report, I'll note that the machine is a Sun Fire V210 (with 2G of RAM and 2 1GHz CPUs). Anything else that would help? --nwf; --vDpvzslK0qRw06MN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuzmUQACgkQTeQabvr9Tc/LkgCcCsjzML2Y64L3dFCpBLt8Wrhz AjMAoIbbsLVLuxqQOAzHnoPcfv2/h72A =tU8H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vDpvzslK0qRw06MN--