From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 14 19:10:51 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A190510656D0; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:10:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rysto32@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f50.google.com (mail-ew0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7A28FC15; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:10:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy10 with SMTP id 10so424253ewy.37 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1EuSJROIPwx4/nsz4xj+QUNX2JlkYhIGpsQlPc+/7OI=; b=v7A6BcLZyVnX+/MQR9iVTr+GtSGhZKaBFjcanuC1fAFPzX6VJSD6rzbqh7rRnnrjqn 0LnDcWD6OBxsy6GZiu/iFSjXcVQFMyCRe5b19xIDzxRk05tKvfQb7W/rnN3pJS1hFMog UBqKDn3gys2t4yx+9dV5/X1kXAKesiguHPma4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.33.3 with SMTP id f3mr837672ebd.111.1316027449870; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.112.212 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:10:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201109140740.17319.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201109140740.17319.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:10:49 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ryan Stone To: John Baldwin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel , Arnaud Lacombe Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7-STABLE mbuf corruption X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:10:51 -0000 On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:40 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > You should probably commit that. I've been meaning to post it to -current to see if somebody could come up with a better approach to solving the problem, but if you're happy with it, I'll submit it to re@. > I wonder if it should be a KASSERT() also so > that it outright panics on a kernel with INVARIANTS enabled so developers will > go fix their code as it seems to me to likely be a bug to enqueue a task that > many times. I can quite trivially reproduce this right now, so that would be something to consider after 9.0 branches off of HEAD.