From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 22 02:41:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A091116A4CE for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:41:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au [210.50.30.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744D643D31 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:41:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au) Received: from robbins.dropbear.id.au (210.50.202.208) by smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (7.0.028) id 40D65C360006C8DF; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:41:09 +1000 Received: by robbins.dropbear.id.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C257C41F5; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:44:27 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:44:27 +1000 From: Tim Robbins To: Eirik Oeverby Message-ID: <20040622024427.GA77653@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <40D74D83.5050904@anduin.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40D74D83.5050904@anduin.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nullfs in 4.10 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:41:38 -0000 On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:05:07PM +0200, Eirik Oeverby wrote: > Hi, > > Since upgrading to 4.10-ish (cvsup), nullfs (mount_null) causes my > jailing host to panic and reboot very frequently. I've been using nullfs > for about a year now, up until and including 4.9 and beyond, and I have > never had problems with it. It has been heavily used, among other things > to mount the host ports tree into all jails (10+), etc. You have not included enough information; you should at least include a panic message and either say what you were doing at the time it crashed or steps to reproduce the problem when reporting bugs. > > Anyone got any idea what's happening? Someone mentioned on -CURRENT that > nullfs has been the victim of some pretty hefty bitrot lately, so > perhaps that's the reason? nullfs is in better shape in -CURRENT than it is in -STABLE. > In any case - in its current form it does not > belong anywhere near a -STABLE release. Please re-read the manual page, paying particular attention to the statement that the file system is not supported. Tim