From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan  4 16:31:33 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E925F1065672
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Wed,  4 Jan 2012 16:31:33 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net)
Received: from smtp.zeninc.net (smtp.zeninc.net [80.67.176.25])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D028FC1C
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Wed,  4 Jan 2012 16:31:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from astro.zen.inc (astro.zen.inc [192.168.1.239])
	by smtp.zeninc.net (smtpd) with ESMTP id 1BCAE2798BD;
	Wed,  4 Jan 2012 17:31:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: by astro.zen.inc (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 35C5B17066; Wed,  4 Jan 2012 17:31:31 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:31:31 +0100
From: VANHULLEBUS Yvan <vanhu@FreeBSD.org>
To: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu>
Message-ID: <20120104163131.GA31787@zeninc.net>
References: <4F044A0B.3020108@fsn.hu> <20120104145155.GA31550@zeninc.net>
	<4F046D95.3070106@fsn.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F046D95.3070106@fsn.hu>
User-Agent: All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less.
Cc: stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re:  Enabling IPSec panics stable/9 (runs OK on stable/8)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:31:34 -0000

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:17:41PM +0100, Attila Nagy wrote:
[....]
>    #7  0xffffffff809bf779 in ipsec_process_done (m=0xfffffe000c7c7a00,
>        isr=0xfffffe001bf54380) at
>    /data/usr/src/sys/netipsec/ipsec_output.c:170
> 
> Here seems to be the problem....
> Can you do the following (in this order) in kgdb:
> frame 7
> p saidx
> p *saidx
> 
>    (kgdb) frame 7
>    #7  0xffffffff809bf779 in ipsec_process_done (m=0xfffffe000c7c7a00,
>        isr=0xfffffe001bf54380) at
>    /data/usr/src/sys/netipsec/ipsec_output.c:170
>    170                     switch (saidx->dst.sa.sa_family) {
>    (kgdb) p saidx
>    No symbol "saidx" in current context.

????
There *is* such a symbol, as confirmed by kgdb's output when you
switched to frame 7 !

Could you check that you are running a correct debug kernel ?


> The latest will probably generate an error, as (if you have the exact
> same ipsec_output.c as I have from HEAD) saidx will probably have an
> invalid adress.
> 
>    I have the same as in HEAD.

Yep, kgdb's outputs confirms that (at least for this line, which is
the most important).


> [...]
> 
>    8-STABLE runs fine with the same config.
> 
> Strange.... I'll review changes in IPsec stack which have been done in
> STABLE/9 and not backported to STABLE/8.....
> 
>    Oh, sorry, not quite an up-to-date 8-STABLE, it's from Sat May 21
>    22:05:26 CEST 2011 (csup'd some hours earlier).
>    Should I check with a more recent version? Does that help?
>    Thanks for helping.

Yes, this may help if you try with a most recent 8-STABLE: I don't
remember exactly what, but I'm quite sure there have been some IPsec
related commits on stable/8 between that date and now !


Yvan.