From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 6 07:10:04 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945F3106566C; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:10:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from kabab.cs.huji.ac.il (kabab.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.84]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB9F8FC08; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 07:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32]) by kabab.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1Nno98-000OLZ-SI; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:09:58 +0200 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Rick Macklem In-reply-to: References: <20100226174021.8feadad9.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <20100226224320.8c4259bf.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <4B884757.9040001@digiware.nl> <20100227080220.ac6a2e4d.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <4B892918.4080701@digiware.nl> <20100227202105.f31cbef7.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <20100227193819.GA60576@icarus.home.lan> <4B89943C.70704@digiware.nl> <20100227220310.GA65110@icarus.home.lan> Comments: In-reply-to Rick Macklem message dated "Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:01:59 -0500." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:09:57 +0200 From: Daniel Braniss Message-ID: Cc: stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Willem Jan Withagen , =?utf-8?B?R2Vycml0IEvDvGhu?= , =?utf-8?B?RWlyaWsgw5h2ZXJieQ==?= , rwatson@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:10:04 -0000 [...] > > but it didn't help, it's not triggered > > > > Hmm, well that's the only place I could see in replay.c that could leak > (and it's a pretty straightforward piece of code). This is getting > interesting. Just to confirm where we currently are... > > - replay cache disabled --> no leak > - replay cache enabled (with or without the above patch) --> leak > yes and yes. > I'll take another look, but I doubt the leak is in replay.c so... maybe > a reply from the cache is somehow handled incorrectly and that causes the > leak elsewhere? (Just a random hunch at this point.) > it works ok in 7.2, so it would be interesting to compare changes ... > > Thanks for the explanation on the cache, things are begining to make sense. > > If I understand, the reason for this cache is to prevent re-applying an > > already performed rpc, which could lead to data corruption > > > > Yep, you've got it. It is basically a bandaid for the poor transport > semantics provided by UDP. > > Having fun with this one. Thanks for the help, rick > I'm glad :-) danny