From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 2 19:23:53 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED89716A4CF; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:23:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.imp.ch (ns1.imp.ch [157.161.1.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9587F43D1D; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:23:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pg@imp.ch) Received: from nbs.imp.ch (nbs.imp.ch [157.161.4.7]) by mail.imp.ch (8.12.9p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i82JNgGG050663; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:23:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from pg@imp.ch) Received: from murphy.imp.ch (murphy.imp.ch [157.161.4.77]) by nbs.imp.ch (8.12.10/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i82JNfir43576804; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:23:41 +0200 (MES) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:20:23 +0000 (UTC) From: Patrick Guelat X-X-Sender: patg@murphy.imp.ch To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902211406.I19478@murphy.imp.ch> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-705649812-1094160023=:19478" X-Spam-Checksum: bd23584c245387dee10c005bccc2bcce X-Virus-Message-Status: No X-Virus-Status: No, scantime="0.0014 seconds" X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5 scantime="2.8912 seconds" tests=BAYES_00, SMILEY X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44 cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Panic in propagate_priority() [5.3-BETA2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:23:53 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-705649812-1094160023=:19478 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Robert Watson wrote: >> exclusive sleep mutex rip r=1 (0xc079e70c) locked @ /usr/src53/sys/netinet6/raw_ip.c:255 > > Ah, indeed, there's an incorrect "lock" instead of "unlock" there. Could > you try the attached patch: Thanks. Your patch works like a dream. I looked a that line a dozen times and didn't realize it was a lock instead of an unlock ;-) I was just wondering why you're using the same lock in IPv4 and IPv6 and if this probably may cause problems in ipv6 over ipv4 situations. Tested on RELENG_5 -Patrick > > Index: raw_ip6.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /data/fbsd-cvs/ncvs/src/sys/netinet6/raw_ip6.c,v > retrieving revision 1.45 > diff -u -r1.45 raw_ip6.c > --- raw_ip6.c 12 Aug 2004 18:31:36 -0000 1.45 > +++ raw_ip6.c 2 Sep 2004 12:55:19 -0000 > @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ > } > ip6stat.ip6s_delivered--; > } > - INP_INFO_RLOCK(&ripcbinfo); > + INP_INFO_RUNLOCK(&ripcbinfo); > return IPPROTO_DONE; > } -- Patrick Guélat, ImproWare AG Network Services, CH-4133 Pratteln Mail: Patrick.Guelat@imp.ch - Phone: +41 61 826 93 00 (ext: 13) --0-705649812-1094160023=:19478--