Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 14:03:45 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 271991] Crash on some network packets with fresh stable Message-ID: <bug-271991-227-xza5arIcCr@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-271991-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-271991-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D271991 --- Comment #7 from Ivan Rozhuk <rozhuk.im@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Mark Johnston from comment #5) > I don't think m_pullup() is the right layer to handle unmapped mbufs. It= gets called very frequently This is good place to make sure that it handles most all cases where unmapp= ed data can be accessed. Code rely on m_pullup() to ensure that data will be available for read. > The patch to m_pullup() assumes that "m" is mapped, which might not be th= e case. May be some additional changes required for this patch :) > e1000 should handle unmapped mbufs though. Do you see "NOMAP" in the int= erface flags as reported by ifconfig? Yes, I see NOMAP in ifconfig output. Probably it not work or if_vlan required to be in chain to reproduce error. > I think it wouldn't be too difficult to make bpf_filter() work with unmap= ped mbufs. It will fix one error, there is many other netgraph configurations that may= be affected. ng_checksum, ng_deflate(?), ng_patch, ng_tcpmss and possible others. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-271991-227-xza5arIcCr>