From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Oct  1 21:45:51 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4C316A41F
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sat,  1 Oct 2005 21:45:51 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929D443D72
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Sat,  1 Oct 2005 21:45:50 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j91LjgsL013885;
	Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200510012145.j91LjgsL013885@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: apelisse@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <61c746830509300224g3d79cbe4ve55e8b0b27004fc3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: freebsd-5.4-stable panics
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:45:51 -0000

On 30 Sep, Antoine Pelisse wrote:
>  Hi Robert,
> I don't think your patch is correct, the total linked list can be broken
> while the lock is released, thus just passing the link may not be enough
> I have submitted a PR[1] for this a month ago but nobody took care of it yet

There are two problems with your patch:

	sched_lock needs to be held while iterating over the threads

	sysctl_kern_proc() calls sysctl_out_proc() multiple times in a
	loop in the !KERN_PROC_PID case, so the buffer needs to be wired
	before calling sysctl_out_proc().

Is _PHOLD()/_PRELE() needed if we don't drop PROC_LOCK?

Passing a size estimate to sysctl_wire_old_buffer() is desirable, but
sysctl_out_proc() would need some restructuring to do this correctly.