From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 19 00:30:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FF6F2A for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:30:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 360A82F69 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r8J0U0M0043179 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:30:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r8J0U0ew043177; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:30:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:30:00 GMT Message-Id: <201309190030.r8J0U0ew043177@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Kirk McKusick Subject: Re: kern/182181: [ufs] Leakage of vnode references (race condition?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Kirk McKusick List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:30:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/182181; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Kirk McKusick To: "Teske, Devin" Cc: Rick Macklem , freebsd-fs , bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/182181: [ufs] Leakage of vnode references (race condition?) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:24:27 -0700 > From: "Teske, Devin" > To: Rick Macklem > Subject: Re: kern/182181: [ufs] Leakage of vnode references (race condition?) > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:11:03 +0000 > Cc: freebsd-fs , > "Teske, Devin" > > On Sep 18, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > >> Devin Teske wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, my confusion was... >>> >>> 1. The PR headers say 8.4-RELEASE-p3 is affected >>> >>> 2. The PR's "How-To-Repeat" starts with "Install a releng/8.4 branch" >>> >>> Yet... >>> >>> releng/8.4 and even releng/8.3 both use VOP_UNLOCK instead of vput >>> (read: are patched). >>> >> Did you mean "not patched"? The patched version in head has vput() >> and the unpatched versions have VOP_UNLOCK(), if I read the coed correctly. >> > > Well, Kirk's fat-finger made me think that VOP_UNLOCK was the patched- > state and vput was the unpatched state. (could also be that I'm fighting > the flu currently). > > So everything is copacetic now, except the one outstanding question... > > Should we not MFC r253998 to stable/8? > > I'm looking to pull this into our own stable/8 kernel, but would > like to do it by way of svn merge from the stable/8 branch. > -- > Devin Per your request, I have MFC'ed the patch to 8-stable as revision 255681. Kirk McKusick