Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:33:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, Tor.Egge@idi.ntnu.no, mike@smith.net.au, toor@dyson.iquest.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VM messed: vm_page_free panic problem Message-ID: <199802172233.PAA04453@usr09.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199802171119.DAA01450@dingo.cdrom.com> from "Mike Smith" at Feb 17, 98 03:19:03 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I believe -stable still uses the vn_rdwr (without the necessary call > > to LEASE_CHECK, of course, the better to break NFS...). In normal > > operation, this problem should never manifest in -stable. > > Can we have a confirmation on this, please? Tor says he's checked the > source and -stable is vulnerable; you say that you don't think it is. > > What's reality look like? Before the "no vn_rdwr", -current did not manifest problems booting on PSE machines. After the "no vn_rdwr", -current manifested problems booting on PSE machines. You can answer this question yourself by trying to boot a 2.2.x branch snap on a PSE capable processor and seeing if it hangs. PS: It did not hang mine. You may want to consider that this is a problem in the code, but it's an unused code path without the "no vn_rdwr" changes, so it's topologically equivalent to not being a problem in the code, as far as 2.2.x is concerned. Of course, it may just be that there is some other way to exercise the hole in the 2.2.x case. But I'll be damned if I can find it. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802172233.PAA04453>