From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 28 04:20:17 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org 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 B862A16A420 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:20:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.156.12.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B0243D48 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:20:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A212146C2D; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 05:20:13 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20050827.220303.130848154.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: <20050828051917.W52467@fledge.watson.org> References: <20050827184153.A24510@fledge.watson.org> <20050827.124941.14976142.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050828025721.X43518@fledge.watson.org> <20050827.220303.130848154.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, dandee@volny.cz Subject: Re: LOR route vr0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:20:17 -0000 On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : Correct. 'tcp' reflects the global TCP state tables (pcbinfo) locks, and > : 'tcpinp' is for individual PCBs. If you acquire first a tcpinp and then > : tcp, the above settings should cause WITNESS to generate a lock order > : warning. Likewise, both tcp and tcpinp preceed so_snd, so if you acquire > : a protocol lock after a socket lock, it will get unhappy. WITNESS handles > : transitive relationships, so it gets connected up to the rest of the lock > : graph, explicit and implicit, so indirect violations of orders are fully > : handled. > > OK. I've been seeing similar LORs in ed, sn, iwi (ed is my locked > version of ed, not in tree GIANT locked ed). > > I've made the following changes, and the LORs go away (except for one, > which was unrelated). I further don't get the first place where they > locks happen that caused the original LORs, so I'm mightly confused. Hmm. I've seen another identical report recently -- that when a lock order is put into WITNESS, reversals against it are not reported. I wonder if we've got a witness bug on our hands? Robert N M Watson