Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:16:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Peter Holm <peter@holm.cc> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Thierry Herbelot <thierry@herbelot.com> Subject: Re: Mbuf double-free guilty party detection patch Message-ID: <20050625171336.H935@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20050625214503.GA25550@peter.osted.lan> References: <20050624212729.C537@odysseus.silby.com> <20050625133052.GA23599@peter.osted.lan> <1437.64.215.82.94.1119717536.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <20050625173217.GA24306@peter.osted.lan> <2565.64.215.82.94.1119729121.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> <20050625214503.GA25550@peter.osted.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Peter Holm wrote: > Maybe a panic is better: I got quite a few before I had to reset the > box: > > 71 This memory last freed by: 0 > 18 This memory last freed by: 0x800 > 17 This memory last freed by: 0xdeadc0df > 17 This memory last freed by: 0x1 Well, all of those are bad addresses due to the buggy first patch. Try the new one I just sent out and see what you get. If looking at caller addresses doesn't prove to be helpful, maybe we should print out the contents of each bad mbuf so that we can try to detect a pattern. > I also added a backtrace and here's the high score: Backtraces in the ctor or fini routine are meaningless, they just point to the next legitimate user of a mbuf, not the user who previously freed it (and then presumably used it after freeing it.) Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050625171336.H935>