Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:28:31 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel panic on jailed sshd - 4.9-release Message-ID: <20031112142539.Y56037@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <200311121658.hACGwPVJ045423@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200311121658.hACGwPVJ045423@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Possibly a program which now triggers a NULLFS problem. For example, it > might be that some program in 4.8 used standard read/write to access > files, and it was changed to use mmap() in 4.9, which can be a problem > with NULLFS. > > Of course I could be wrong. Something else could have caused that > particular crash. But still it is a good idea not to use NULLFS if > possible. (Particularly in a jail environment if you don't have strict > control over which programs get executed, such as a user shell box.) I stop'd using NULLFS myself awhile back, since I too was getting problems, but figured I was over-tempting fate by using UNIONFS *and* NULLFS at the same time ... But, if we can get a core dump from the system in question, at least we can try and isolate where the issue is ... it might be something that a simple 2 line patch can fix ... > If a miracle happened and NULLFS got stable recently, then the > mount_null(8) manpage should be fixed, because it states just the > opposite. ;-) What I'd love to see is the man page changed so that the BUGS section indicates in what circumstances NULL/UNIONFS are unstable ... document it so that ppl don't have to go through trial-n-error each time ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031112142539.Y56037>