Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:10:23 +0900 (JST) From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) To: bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPSec fixes Message-ID: <20040116041023.4B54EB9@coconut.itojun.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:16:59 %2B0000 (UTC)" <Pine.BSF.4.53.0401152212230.66397@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0401152212230.66397@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I have built a HEAD kernel from this evening. > > crashing the kernel is more easy than booting it... > > So the big question at the moment is - why will it not happen if I > remove the unlink call from the spdflush ? What am I missing ? > If anybody has any more ideas please let me know; I will nost likely > not find the time for more debugging until sat eve. the problem i have with the patch is, i have never experienced the symptom with NetBSD. no panic at all, no funny "SPD entry go away when it has to stay" issue nor no "dangling pointer" issue. could you show me your script which panics your FreeBSD box? i will try that on NetBSD-current box here. there could be some difference in NetBSD kernel code and FreeBSD due to KAME->*BSD merge timing, and FreeBSD could have pull in some source of instability (just my guess). itojun
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040116041023.4B54EB9>