Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:03:05 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 204340] [panic] nfsd, em, msix, fatal trap 9 Message-ID: <bug-204340-8-wRVuxyQBkC@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-204340-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-204340-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D204340 --- Comment #22 from Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Rick Macklem from comment #20) Rick, thank you very much for the explanation! I knew that nfsd processes = were special as they 'lend their stacks to kernel' or something like that. But I failed to realise that that put restrictions in the signals as well. I should also explain that kill -9 was not used to shutdown nfsd or as a replacement for the normal nfsd management. It was used just to demonstrate the problem. I think that originally the problem happened when gdb was used on an nfsd process. I understand that the nfsd processes are special. But the situation seems = to be a bit fragile. The current design is old and proven. But perhaps we co= uld switch to using kernel processes or maybe we could mark the nfsd processes = with a special flag somehow as to prevent them being killed SIGKILL or stopped w= ith SIGSTOP (i.e. prevent normal signal delivery for all signals). Lastly, just to clarify, should we avoid using debuggers / SIGSTOP with nfs= d? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-204340-8-wRVuxyQBkC>