From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 7 21:51:40 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE53216A4CE; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:51:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC8E43D1F; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:51:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i57Lohhc037919; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:50:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i57Lohph037916; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:50:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:50:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Stefan Ehmann , Arjan van Leeuwen In-Reply-To: <1086642350.827.1.camel@taxman> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: file descripter leak in current with Qmail? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 21:51:40 -0000 On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Stefan Ehmann wrote: > On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 22:38, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > > > I get a panic (address not allocated) when using the patch. I can't > > > write down any useful details about it right now, because although the > > > server has only 3 users, they're very disconcerned when I disrupt their > > > internet traffic :). > > > > Doh. Sorry about that. Revised patch attached. I'm able to test the > > leak with the attached C file, and on my test box (now that it doesn't > > panic), the leak appears fixed for non-blocking accepts. > > Thanks, that fixed it here too. Ok, I've gone ahead and merged the fix. Thanks for the bug report, and thanks to Brian for the pointer at the accept() change. The reason I became involved in the thread in the first place was that I was worried it might be something like this, and indeed, it was. Let me know if you have any further problems of this sort. There will probably be some more nits like this as more locking is merged -- hence merging it in small functional changes in as much as is possible, allowing each change to shake out some before the next batch. Thanks! Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research