Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:58:05 +0200
From:      Patrick Lamaiziere <patfbsd@davenulle.org>
To:        Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Possible kqueue related issue on STABLE/RC.
Message-ID:  <20130925095805.2072f0cc@mr129166>
In-Reply-To: <20130924212127.GQ41229@kib.kiev.ua>
References:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.1309112316160.2547@olgeni.olgeni> <20130912073643.GM41229@kib.kiev.ua> <20130920151705.33aae120@mr129166> <20130923153708.45c3be3d@mr129166> <20130923203141.GV41229@kib.kiev.ua> <20130924094427.0f4b902a@mr129166> <20130924082909.GH41229@kib.kiev.ua> <20130924114738.60c700c9@mr129166> <20130924121434.GI41229@kib.kiev.ua> <20130924174517.GB14220@funkthat.com> <20130924212127.GQ41229@kib.kiev.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:21:27 +0300,
Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hello,

> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:45:17AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > I'd like to understand why you think protecting these functions w/
> > the _DETACHED check is correct...  In kern_event.c, all calls to
> > f_detach are followed by knote_drop which will ensure that the knote
> > is removed and free, so no more f_event calls will be called on that
> > knote..
> 
> My current belief is that what happens is a glitch in the
> kqueue_register(). After a new knote is created and attached, the kq
> lock is dropped and then f_event() is called. If the vnode is
> reclaimed or possible freed meantime, f_event() seems to dereference
> freed memory, since kn_hook points to freed vnode.
> 
> The issue as I see it is that vnode lifecycle is detached from the
> knote lifecycle.  Might be, only the second patch, which acquires a
> hold reference on the vnode for each knote, is really needed.  But
> before going into any conclusions, I want to see the testing results.

Testing looks good with your latest patch. I was able to run a complete
poudriere bulk (870 packages). I'm running another bulk to see.

If you have other patches to test just ask, I have not updated my
packages because there was a change to make gvfsd to ignore some
poudriere activity. So I guess it will be harder to see this
problem.

Many thanks Konstantin,
Regards



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130925095805.2072f0cc>