From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 14 17:20:49 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AED37B401
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0665443F93
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from silby@silby.com)
Received: (qmail 65280 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 00:20:47 -0000
Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70)
  by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2003 00:20:47 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:20:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307141514410.40558-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
Message-ID: <20030714191735.Y8225@odysseus.silby.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307141514410.40558-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 4.x mbuf binary compatibility; can it be broken?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:20:50 -0000


On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> >
> > In the process of hunting down reported panics in xl_newbuf, I've come to
> > the conclusion that the panics are a result of mbuf cluster refcounts
> > overflowing.  This is not too surprising, as we use an array of chars to
> > store the refcounts.  (-current uses ints, and doesn't have this problem.)
> >
> > It's easy enough to switch from a char to an int array in 4.x to fix the
> > problem there, but there is a problem:  Our friendly mbuf macros (MCLALLOC
> > and MCLFREE) manipulate the refcount.  This means that 3rd party modules
> > which use the macros will no longer work properly.
> >
>
> As the user of a 3rd party driver (binary only)
> PLEASE don't do this..
>
> How does it get 255+ references?

I don't know exactly at this point.  I can reproduce the situation at will
with (in kernel) test code, but I don't know what exactly causes it in the
wild.

Given that increasing the ref count limit is so easy, I was hoping to
avoid spending time tracking down one degenerate case. :)

Mike "Silby" Silbersack