From owner-freebsd-alpha Wed May 15 16:54:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5127B37B405 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) by srv1.cosmo-project.de (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g4FNrrHc094628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Thu, 16 May 2002 01:53:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely5.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g4FNrq95013664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 16 May 2002 01:53:52 +0200 (CEST)?g (envelope-from ticso@cicely5.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g4FNrqrX013663; Thu, 16 May 2002 01:53:52 +0200 (CEST)?g (envelope-from ticso) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 01:53:51 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Andrew Gallatin Cc: Rich Bud , freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: natd sig 10 under stable Message-ID: <20020515235351.GO4401@cicely5.cicely.de> References: <20020515160407.T28044-100000@nemesis.fortean.com> <15586.55082.170680.378288@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15586.55082.170680.378288@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.26i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely5.cicely.de 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:46:18PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Rich Bud writes: > > BTW, Craig Burgess posted about a sig 10 in natd back in february under > > different conditions. I didn't see any replies, so i'm guessing this is > > the same problem... > > Probably, but this is much more useful information that Craig was ever > able to supply. With your information, it may be possible to diagnose > & fix the problem. > > > > Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error. > > 0x120008614 in AliasHandleQuestion (count=1, q=0x11feb911, pmax=0x11feb926 "", nbtarg=0x11feb838) at /usr/src/lib/libalias/alias_nbt.c:290 > > 290 switch ( ntohs(q->type) ) { > > (gdb) ptype q > > type = struct { > > u_short type; > > u_short class; > > } * > > q = (NBTNsQuestion *) 0x11feb911, q->class = 1, q->type = 0 > > > > This address is unaligned. Is one of machdep.unaligned_sigbus > == 1, machdep.unaligned_fix == 0 true? (or the uac equivalent) Can you please print pip, *pip, uh, p and nsh in AliasHandleUdpNbtNS()? I will need to know which part of the packets can be missaligned. It's much fast if we can realign the whole data part instead of just each segment. > If not, perhaps the unaligned fixup handler needs to be enhanced to > handle a new sort of instruction. Can you disassemble the code at the > faulting PC & see what instruction generated the access, please? > (or enable unaligned printing via uac -p in the shell which starts natd). Sounds like the most likely reason - especially considering BWX. I will check out how much work it is to expand our trap.c -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message