Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:33:55 +0100 From: Kirill Ponomarev <kp@krion.cc> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: smr inp breaks some jail use cases and panics with i915kms don't switch to the console anymore Message-ID: <YbhW85Db8y26joUz@krion.cc> In-Reply-To: <YbesUxkqt/eoL9Sb@FreeBSD.org> References: <1db0942e-0e66-4337-ce2f-4e1005107435@FreeBSD.org> <YbeEbgxJ5Vpg/hYe@cell.glebi.us> <836761df-6eea-462b-9ae7-5d0d00aad38f@FreeBSD.org> <YbesUxkqt/eoL9Sb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--VX9rrHFS+3WhNl63 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/13, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:56:35AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > J> > J> So there are two things here. The root issue is that the devel/a= pr1 port > J> > J> runs a configure test for TCP_NDELAY being inherited by accepted = sockets. > J> > J> This test panics because prison_check_ip4() tries to lock a priso= n mutex > J> > J> to walk the IPs assigned to a jail, but the caller (in_pcblookup_= hash()) has > J> > J> done an smr_enter() which is a critical_enter(): > J> >=20 > J> > The first one is known, and I got a patch to fix it: > J> >=20 > J> > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33340 > J> >=20 > J> > However, a pre-requisite to this simple patch is more complex: > J> >=20 > J> > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33339 > J> >=20 > J> > There is some discussion on how to improve that, and I decided to do= that > J> > rather than stick to original version. So I takes a few extra days. > J> >=20 > J> > We could push D33340 into main, if the negative effects (raciness of > J> > the prison check) is considered lesser evil then potentially contest= ed > J> > mtx_lock in smr section. > J>=20 > J> I think raciness is probably better than always panicking as it does t= oday. >=20 > AFAIK, today it will always panic only with WITNESS. Without WITNESS it w= ould > pass through mtx_lock as long as the mutex is not locked. >=20 > So, do you suggest to push D33340 before finalizing D33339? It panics with GENERIC so I'd suggest to push D33340 or backout it temprorary until D33339 is solved. --VX9rrHFS+3WhNl63 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEJCHRFhEAQujKni1pDyI9/LMCykUFAmG4VvMACgkQDyI9/LMC ykXr0Qf+O05zkTDDyGkCIus5KN+bjiJBZPXS359O3s7VzypB+0Ukjz1TEND+xEe3 aTY/P9Pyg0qa4d4bdHoA0R0rujjORgreLOIJmxlWJKqoxP4dtGq0pOl2jGsSVPTo m0IrS8T9dfXL2F2+Lw3NBPYcD2BuNZeeRQbsLDJDZdxJRuk5JUvH5/pt1IfA+j3S XYSdFUV6a6N2BdPt3Aw8hgWPPBRmmEdbp/IAj6HteP9+xJYP+RrUMgVxFjYxsjiv TQLbFca77VEhBVtwyStkSWrZUjAGvYe5uckT09278ibpPoLovA3U5jgr8pehMwzi 7w3GMC2cnbg1kszvyOvnouGln8mF3Q== =PQha -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VX9rrHFS+3WhNl63--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YbhW85Db8y26joUz>