Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:41:28 +0200 From: Marko Zec <zec@fer.hr> To: <peter.blok@bsd4all.org> Cc: Kristof Provost <kristof@sigsegv.be>, <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MFC VIMAGE fixes to 11-stable Message-ID: <20170420214128.29379fdb@x23> In-Reply-To: <C662C1B6-BCB7-4B92-9512-9E5B085B0AF8@bsd4all.org> References: <8E6FC1CD-24D5-46D5-A6A1-760DD612F92D@bsd4all.org> <20170420124256.1190665d@x23> <60C3FBF7-7CF3-49AF-9DDF-0589AE9D9146@sigsegv.be> <20170420152853.019e5480@x23> <ACA8734E-88DF-4E7F-BB54-00D393ED7EA6@sigsegv.be> <C662C1B6-BCB7-4B92-9512-9E5B085B0AF8@bsd4all.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:24:33 +0200 <peter.blok@bsd4all.org> wrote: > It doesn=E2=80=99t solve my problem, but below is the stack back trace th= at > leads to the problem that allocation doen for the default vnet are > given back as part of the vnet destroy. >=20 > #0 0xffffffff807ff275 at pfr_destroy_kentry+0x35 > #1 0xffffffff807fe47c at pfr_remove_kentries+0x1fc > #2 0xffffffff808053cd at pfr_setflags_ktable+0xcd > #3 0xffffffff80802108 at pfr_clr_tables+0x248 > #4 0xffffffff807ecd75 at vnet_pf_uninit+0x4a5 > #5 0xffffffff806a9d2c at vnet_destroy+0x13c > #6 0xffffffff8056cdcf at prison_deref+0x2af > #7 0xffffffff805ee287 at taskqueue_run_locked+0x127 > #8 0xffffffff805ef428 at taskqueue_thread_loop+0xc8 > #9 0xffffffff80565505 at fork_exit+0x85 > #10 0xffffffff808d245e at fork_trampoline+0xe Having absolutely no clue what the PF code does or is supposed to do, I'd bet that V_irtualizing pfr_ktablehead, and probably pfr_nulltable and pfr_ktable_cnt as well, would help here. Marko >=20 >=20 > > On 20 Apr 2017, at 15:32, Kristof Provost <kristof@sigsegv.be> > > wrote: > >=20 > > On 20 Apr 2017, at 15:28, Marko Zec wrote: =20 > >> Right. But pfi_attach_group_event() and the other handlers cited > >> above _do_ in fact invoke CURVNET_SET(vnet0) on entry, overriding > >> the proper vnet choice from the caller. > >> =20 > > Yes, that does look wrong. > > I should have looked a bit further. > > =20 > >> Therefore the proper fix should be as simple as removing > >> CURVNET_SET() / CURVNET_RESTORE() macro pairs from the cited > >> handlers.=20 > > Hopefully, yes. I=E2=80=99ve still got some other pf/vnet issues on my = todo > > list, but I=E2=80=99ve now added this too. It might actually explain s= ome > > other bug report I=E2=80=99ve seen (but not looked at in any depth). > >=20 > > Regards, > > Kristof > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" =20 >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170420214128.29379fdb>