From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 17 21:20:08 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1AF7106564A for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:20:08 +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 8A2418FC15 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:20:08 +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 p0HLK83d009773 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:20:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p0HLK8iN009772; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:20:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:20:08 GMT Message-Id: <201101172120.p0HLK8iN009772@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org From: Juergen Lock Cc: Subject: Re: kern/153938: [run] [panic] [patch] Workaround for use-after-free panic X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Lock List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:20:08 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/153938; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Juergen Lock To: PseudoCylon Cc: Juergen Lock , bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/153938: [run] [panic] [patch] Workaround for use-after-free panic Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:14:04 +0100 On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:24:07PM -0800, PseudoCylon wrote: > > [...] > > I see you removed the rn->wcid code, I guess I should have > > explained what it's for: ni->ni_associd already gets zeroed before > > run_node_cleanup() is called so with your version no sc->sc_ni[wcid] > > ever gets set to NULL. > > > > You're right. > > > + if (wcid == 0) > > + wcid = rn->wcid; > > > Is there any reason to test "ni->ni_associd == 0"? We know it is 0. Oh I only left it in in case the surrounding code changes in the future, but I guess that's pretty unlikely. So I agree the check can be removed...