Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 05:49:31 +0000 From: Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/ipfilter/netinet ip_auth.c Message-ID: <20041227054931.GC20920@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20041226.222435.52824948.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20041226165927.GA18879@hub.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0412261707210.68472@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <20041226182537.GB20920@hub.freebsd.org> <20041226.222435.52824948.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 10:24:35PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20041226182537.GB20920@hub.freebsd.org> > Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org> writes: > : On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 05:09:23PM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > : > [1] http://sources.zabbadoz.net/freebsd/lor.html#050 > : > : This would appear, to me, as deficencies in the witness code > : and that perhaps LORs, unless they are in the leadup to a system > : deadlock'ing, are just something to be ignored. > > Nearly all LORs could lead to system deadlock, especially in low > resource situations. It is highly doubtful that there's a problem in > witness. You should fix your code and not ignore the warning. As you say, "Nearly all", not "all". I believe the IPFilter ones fall outside of the "all" group. Given what I have seen the witness code do with LOR checking, it is trivial to write code that generates a LOR warning without ever being vulnerable to causing a system deadlock through resource problems. I believe the person who developed witness realised this in time and hence added the "blessed" option so tha twarnings would not be emitted for specific known safe cases. Darren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041227054931.GC20920>