From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 9 14:08:15 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704921065677; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:08:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from to.my.trociny@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ey0-f182.google.com (mail-ey0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5D78FC17; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:08:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so1880181eyd.13 for ; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:08:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:sender:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=YscLD5niNdSVZLNbmzOLdSQMfDdJi4f9ufLY/JtqYWs=; b=Ho4S9MTIEZuEQzIgeSRyk5/FXZPa85hhcG3g1e/dz5Bq+HGoqATjLyUVEP+Np44ZB+ OZv/pGluJcErHZZJTm+n9hzmn4DMOxsJUaWU0kypG1m6qNv4b1nhbIZwJ/EQS+yASv/6 sRJQegClnByNNYUjZZCuyuTyhRxcovFuI82gs= Received: by 10.14.16.1 with SMTP id g1mr200585eeg.77.1320847692729; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([94.27.39.186]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o4sm13842675eeb.0.2011.11.09.06.08.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:08:09 -0800 (PST) From: Mikolaj Golub To: "Robert N. M. Watson" Organization: TOA Ukraine References: <201111061047.pA6AlKnc017568@svn.freebsd.org> <86r51lcyn2.fsf@kopusha.home.net> <2494F45C-AEEA-43D6-B373-AACF747A09B6@freebsd.org> Sender: Mikolaj Golub Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:08:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2494F45C-AEEA-43D6-B373-AACF747A09B6@freebsd.org> (Robert N. M. Watson's message of "Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:27:16 -0500") Message-ID: <86vcqtgzi1.fsf@in138.ua3> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r227207 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6 X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:08:15 -0000 On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:27:16 -0500 Robert N. M. Watson wrote: RNMW> On 6 Nov 2011, at 05:51, Mikolaj Golub wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:47:20 +0000 (UTC) Mikolaj Golub wrote: >> >> MG> Author: trociny >> MG> Date: Sun Nov 6 10:47:20 2011 >> MG> New Revision: 227207 >> MG> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227207 >> >> MG> Log: >> MG> Cache SO_REUSEPORT socket option in inpcb-layer in order to avoid >> MG> inp_socket->so_options dereference when we may not acquire the lock on >> MG> the inpcb. >> MG> >> MG> This fixes the crash due to NULL pointer dereference in >> MG> in_pcbbind_setup() when inp_socket->so_options in a pcb returned by >> MG> in_pcblookup_local() was checked. >> MG> >> MG> Reported by: dave jones , Arnaud Lacombe >> MG> Suggested by: rwatson >> MG> Glanced by: rwatson >> MG> Tested by: dave jones >> >> This commit fixes the panic reported by Dave for 9.0 triggered by >> named. Robert has helped very much suggesting the solution and looking >> at the patches. Unfortunately being saturated on free time he >> couldn't do thorough review of the final version confirming only that >> presumably the approach was correct. >> >> I made an effort to check that there was no regression and SO_REUSEADDR >> worked the same way as it had worked before. But I can't be 100% confident >> that I haven't broken something. Because of this I am going to MFC >> only after the release. >> >> Here is the initial discussion of the issue: >> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2011-September/029858.html RNMW> Hi Mikolaj: Hi, RNMW> In light of some additional reports of races reminiscent of this one RNMW> (i.e., the UDP crash report on net@ a few days ago), I wonder if we RNMW> should change plans and attempt to get this in the release? I'm sorry I RNMW> haven't had a chance to do a more thorough review, and will try to get RNMW> to that later this week now that my current batch of meetings is RNMW> winding down. I think I saw that report (from sobomax@) and actully it looked for me like not related to this fix. Actually I was not able to find an explanation how it could have happened there :-). Also, although it has not been mentioned in the message according to reffered sources it was stable/8 and it looks like there have been many changes since then in the code. Sure I may have missed something. Nevertheless, I have no any objections to get this fix in the release if people say it is good idea. -- Mikolaj Golub