From owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Mon Jun 19 21:04:23 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B498DA4B98 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:04:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4927184376 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:04:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v5JL4NXT073839 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:04:23 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 220078] [patch] [panic] [ipfw] repeatable kernel panic due to unlocked INADDR_TO_IFP usage Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:04:23 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: peixoto.cassiano@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:04:23 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D220078 --- Comment #10 from Cassiano Peixoto --- (In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #9) mcast has been reject: # patch < mcast.patch=20 Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- sys/netinet/in_mcast.c.orig 2017-04-20 15:01:10.786840000 +0700 |+++ sys/netinet/in_mcast.c 2017-06-17 18:24:34.034823000 +0700 -------------------------- Patching file sys/netinet/in_mcast.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 1340 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 1378 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 1878 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 1895 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 2229 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #6 failed at 2288. Hunk #7 succeeded at 2452 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #8 succeeded at 2491 (offset 2 lines). 1 out of 8 hunks failed--saving rejects to sys/netinet/in_mcast.c.rej done Exit 1 # cat sys/netinet/in_mcast.c.rej @@ -2283,9 +2288,11 @@ * XXX NOTE WELL: The RFC 3678 API is preferred because * using an IPv4 address as a key is racy. */ - if (!in_nullhost(mreqs.imr_interface)) + if (!in_nullhost(mreqs.imr_interface)) { + IN_IFADDR_RLOCK(&in_ifa_tracker); INADDR_TO_IFP(mreqs.imr_interface, ifp); - + IN_IFADDR_RUNLOCK(&in_ifa_tracker); + } CTR3(KTR_IGMPV3, "%s: imr_interface =3D 0x%08x, ifp =3D %p", __func__, ntohl(mreqs.imr_interface.s_addr), ifp); --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=