From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 22 20:34:38 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 C7B5F16A4CE; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:34:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9036D43D1D; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:34:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from alc@cs.rice.edu) Received: from localhost (calypso.cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.127]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2A34A9AE; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:34:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([128.42.1.30]) by localhost (calypso.cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.127]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31683-01-73; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:34:35 -0600 (CST) Received: by cs.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 19572) id A54434A9A7; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:34:35 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:34:35 -0600 From: Alan Cox To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20041222203435.GN1362@cs.rice.edu> References: <20041220201953.GI1362@cs.rice.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20030616-p7 at cs.rice.edu cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: sbflush_locked 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: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:34:38 -0000 On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 08:55:31AM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > I haven't seen this in a very long time, but I've definitely tried to > > > track it down before with zero luck. > > > > With the attached change, I've had no more crashes. > > > > I speculate uipc_send() is missing needed synchronization on so_snd. > > Robert, can you verify the patch? > > Sorry for the delay in responding to your original post; I'm still > catching up with e-mail from my trip to Bangladesh. I actually had > similar changes to this in the netperf branch at one point, but think I > removed them due to concerns about lock order. However, this change is > careful to acquire the send lock before the receive lock, so I think > shouldn't present a problem from that perspective. Please go ahead and > commit, perhaps with a 2 week MFC time? I just committed the patch. Thanks for the review. Alan