From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 9 20:40:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E4416A4CF for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:40:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995D643D39 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:40:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iA9KeLLo012079 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:40:21 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id iA9KeL8i012078; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:40:21 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:40:21 GMT Message-Id: <200411092040.iA9KeL8i012078@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Maxim Konovalov Subject: Re: kern/73719: Page fault in bpf_mtap () X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Maxim Konovalov List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:40:22 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/73719; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Maxim Konovalov To: Vladimir Ivanov Cc: rwatson@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/73719: Page fault in bpf_mtap () Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:35:41 +0300 (MSK) On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, 20:10-0000, Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > The following reply was made to PR kern/73719; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Vladimir Ivanov > To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, wawa@yandex-team.ru > Cc: > Subject: Re: kern/73719: Page fault in bpf_mtap () > Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:02:26 +0300 > > Ok, > The bpf_mtap () seems to be little enough to make a look. > > We suppose that most probable reason to panic is zero value of "bp" pointer. > Also, I know that bpf open/close are frequent on my system. > We can see (look at BPF_MTAP definition) that the value may be changed > from another thread after verification but before bpf_mtap call because > "ifp" points to global variable. The patch does not change the logic of > program as you can see but garantee "bp" is not NULL. The only side > effect is hypotetic pushing extra packet to just detached bpf device. > It's not very big price I seem > > I've commited the patch to the system and awaiting results. I can't believe this technique is a right way to fix things. Robert, is bpf(4) MP safe already? -- Maxim Konovalov