From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 19 21:29:57 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E788106566B for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:29:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from greg@bonett.org) Received: from bonett.org (bonett.org [66.249.7.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570E48FC14 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (cpe-75-84-98-111.socal.res.rr.com [75.84.98.111]) by bonett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1607124789 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:23:49 +0000 (UTC) From: Greg Bonett To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:24:51 -0700 Message-ID: <1342733091.12482.12.camel@home.bonett.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: kernel panic caused by zfs/sa.c X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: greg@bonett.org List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:29:57 -0000 Hello, I'm experiencing a kernel panic that appears to be caused by zfs. No errors are making it into /var/log/messages, but here is the error message that appears on my screen after panic (transcribed): panic solaris assert BSWAP_32(sa_hdr_phys->sa_magic) == SA_MAGIC, file: /src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/sa.c, line 1262 I can reproduce this by running "cd /usr/ports/www/webkit-ghtk2; make clean" I looked at line 1262 in sa.c and it's part of a bit of code that checks if byte swapping is necessary. The code starting at line 1260: if (IS_SA_BONUSTYPE(bonustype) && sa_hdr_phys->sa_magic != SA_MAGIC && sa_hdr_phys->sa_magic != 0) { VERIFY(BSWAP_32(sa_hdr_phys->sa_magic) == SA_MAGIC); sa_byteswap(hdl, buftype); } As far as I can tell, my source is up to date and this code is the same as what is in 9-STABLE. I'm not sure what's causing the panic, does anyone have a suggestion? Thanks for the help. --Greg