From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 14 18:39:54 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C69106564A for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:39:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rysto32@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 C380B8FC08 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:39:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eyg7 with SMTP id 7so1203688eyg.13 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:39:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1EuSJROIPwx4/nsz4xj+QUNX2JlkYhIGpsQlPc+/7OI=; b=SxrZHRUhfKpXFow8/0FImbtsa4HHPH+dvSUPcAmyl88ekWuU4V2eZz7j1fHoQxMyYl xuztsk02PNm23q5qyaLiHwIqMW7aj2B0DKlxg3B0b+pHC8v3simrafziQ6JMQTyZYB62 rMKCKsFSSzAR2Trv18v2/iQWOkUUcxPJVr/8k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.33.3 with SMTP id f3mr829059ebd.111.1316025592291; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.112.212 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201109140740.17319.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201109140740.17319.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:39:51 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ryan Stone To: John Baldwin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel , Arnaud Lacombe Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7-STABLE mbuf corruption X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:39:54 -0000 On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:40 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > You should probably commit that. I've been meaning to post it to -current to see if somebody could come up with a better approach to solving the problem, but if you're happy with it, I'll submit it to re@. > I wonder if it should be a KASSERT() also so > that it outright panics on a kernel with INVARIANTS enabled so developers will > go fix their code as it seems to me to likely be a bug to enqueue a task that > many times. I can quite trivially reproduce this right now, so that would be something to consider after 9.0 branches off of HEAD.