Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:21:47 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD current mailing list <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mutex Giant not owned at /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c:120 Message-ID: <4133703B.4050601@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20040830144041.GA33772@cell.sick.ru> References: <20040830095729.GD30701@cell.sick.ru> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040830102627.18639D-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20040830144041.GA33772@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
One option is to remove the functionality of making netgraph load kernel modules.. I think this is outside the scope of netgraph really.... Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 10:35:05AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: >R> > B> > This causes Giant to be acquired in the event we enter the linker code >R> > B> > (and hence VFS code) via netgraph ngc_send(). It should be safe in this >R> > B> > context as we enter protocol send routines without mutexes held (i.e., why >R> > B> > we're also able to do blocking memory allocation here.) >R> > B> >R> > B> please commit. >R> > >R> > I think Giant should be acquired in linker_load_module(), and this way >R> > we will prevent this panic in other codepaths. For example in >R> > vfs_mount.c, when vfs will be Giant-free. Have I missed something? >R> >R> Well, one of the primary reasons the linker needs Giant here is its use of >R> VFS. I think for now I'd like to acquire Giant in netgraph so as to >R> expose the use of Giant in that piece of the network stack in the calling >R> code. We might want to add GIANT_REQUIRED assertions in the linker code >R> to make sure we trigger assertions even if the linker doesn't hit VFS to >R> make sure potentially hitting Giant is caught. > >OK. Then commit it pls. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4133703B.4050601>