From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 19 07:41:58 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7A116A400 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:41:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) Received: from pobox.codelabs.ru (pobox.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C366113C44B for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:41:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=one; d=codelabs.ru; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:Sender:Subject; b=AoC95VB/xZ35wDZfQcpfiu8oQyq2Ft/Sxn5Vq29TLV3/xavKr71Qxj8V3FfE8RP3O1hqsc+czerlumfb9CybCozNTehTnC29W6SE/R8/pm8b3s4RgHvoxnwGOMJRmzySNVbMwLzaTNrkIBpdzBwjmRyMChjLV+0eGt3LZx9yuCE=; Received: from void.codelabs.ru (void.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.25]) by pobox.codelabs.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) id 1I0YLb-0005Dt-5z; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:41:55 +0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:41:50 +0400 From: Eygene Ryabinkin To: Max Laier Message-ID: <20070619074150.GC26920@void.codelabs.ru> References: <200706160347.33331.max@love2party.net> <20070617094126.GT3779@void.codelabs.ru> <200706171717.21585.max@love2party.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706171717.21585.max@love2party.net> Sender: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru Cc: nate@root.org, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pf 4.1 Update available for testing X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:41:58 -0000 Max, good day. Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:17:14PM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > > I glanced over the new code and found that no changes were > > introduced to the altq_subr.c. And there was rather old issue > > I found in April: non-initialised callback due to Nate Lawson's > > changes in handling the changing CPU frequencies. > > > > Looks like it is still living in the code. My original posting > > is at > >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-April/071652.html > > > > Could you please take a look? > > Are you saying that the patch in that mail fixes things for you? I recall > the discussion vaguely, but somehow dropped out of it - sorry. Yes, the patch fixed the kernel crash for me. Just tested on the -CURRENT that is about a week old without my patch: it crashes. The easiest way to test it is to start the machine without ALTQ statements in the pf.conf, wait a while for the CPU frequency change and then to enable ALTQ in the pf.conf. The only needed statements are the 'altq' for the acrtive interface, one does not need any altq-related statements for the filtering rules. This sequence provokes the ALTQ's cpufreq handler to be invoked and the machclk_freq to be initialized to some value. When ALTQ will be enabled, the callback won't be initialized. And I am almost immediately catching the kernel fault in the softclock, due to the bad callback. With my patch the problem goes away. Just checked ;)) -- Eygene