From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 9 09:30:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68647106567C for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:30:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8511A8FC20 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:30:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o799U7sK048507 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:30:07 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o799U7KP048502; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:30:07 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:30:07 GMT Message-Id: <201008090930.o799U7KP048502@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org From: Alex Kozlov Cc: Subject: Re: kern/149185: [rum] [panic] panic in rum(4) driver on 8.1-R X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Kozlov List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:30:08 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/149185; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Alex Kozlov To: Juergen Lock , Bernhard Schmidt , rpaulo@freebsd.org, Kevin Lo , bug-followup@freebsd.org, spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua Cc: Subject: Re: kern/149185: [rum] [panic] panic in rum(4) driver on 8.1-R Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:23:26 +0300 On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 05:14:46PM +0200, Juergen Lock wrote: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:11, Alex Kozlov wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:05:39AM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > > >> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 08:52, Alex Kozlov wrote: > > >> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:02:35PM +0200, Juergen Lock wrote: > > >> >>  Regarding the 8.1 if_rum(4) panics...  I got a similar one, extracted > > >> >> a dump and tried to gather some info for someone who knows the code: > > >> >> > > >> >>  The zero divide fault was because (apparently) rate was unitialized, > > >> >> as is > > >> >> > > >> >>       ((struct ieee80211_node *) m->M_dat.MH.MH_pkthdr.rcvif)->ni_vap->iv_txparms[0] > > >> >> > > >> >> i.e. struct ieee80211_txparam &vap->iv_txparms[0] in case it matters. > > >> > Yes, its seems that ratectl framework sometimes set ni->ni_txrate to 0 > > >> > This can be mitigated by patch [1] or by setting ucastrate option in > > >> > ifconfig. Still real issue need to be solved. > > >> > > >> The real issue is that prior to an association (RUN state) > > >> ieee80211_ratectl_node_init() is not called, therefore iv_bss is not > > >> configured in any way. > > > ieee80211_ratectl_node_init() called from iv_newstate when switching to > > > IEEE80211_S_RUN state. Most drivers do the same. Is it wrong? > > > Some call it from iv_newassoc, but this marked /* XXX move */ > > > > > >> I'll look into that if no one beats me. > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Please give attached patch a try, it should fix the issue for rum and > > all other drivers relying on the new ratectl stuff. > That seems to stop the panics, but the wifi still only works partially > (at least with hostapd), like with my original hack of a patch. One That why I use ad-hoc. Yes, seems that this panic eliminated. -- Adios