From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Sep 11 12: 6:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE61837B422 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e8BJ6fg26673; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:06:41 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: David Kirchner Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Strange procfs bug(?) 3.2-RELEASE Message-ID: <20000911120640.J12231@fw.wintelcom.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from dpk@parodius.com on Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:49:20AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * David Kirchner [000911 11:49] wrote: > > I've been trying to track down a procfs bug which has semi-recently popped > up. I'm not 100% certain it is a bug in procfs, but it seems to be the > most likely candidate. > > We first noticed the bug when we used the 'killall' command to kill off > processes. Whenever we'd run it, the machine would panic. We assumed it > was because we might have been killing something that was in a weird > state. But later on when I was trying to figure out something else on the > same box, I was running 'more /proc/*/status' and it panic'd. Just now, I > ran a little script: > > cd /proc > for i in * > do > ps -uxp $i >> /root/killallfindbug.log 2>&1 > sync;sync > cat /proc/$i/status >> /root/killallfindbug.log 2>&1 > sync;sync > done > > which also caused a panic (double panic, this time). The last line in the > log file was: > > www 1756 0.0 0.8 5900 4364 ?? S 11:14AM 0:00.22 > /usr/local/bin/http > > (That would have been /usr/local/bin/httpd -f > /usr/local/www/server/conf/httpd.conf if I added -w to the ps flags) > > This is on a 3.2-RELEASE machine. We haven't rebuilt the kernels on these > boxes in a long time, and they haven't been modified (been watching with > tripwire) to our knowledge anyhow. Yes, there's a problem with procfs in 3.2 when you stress it heavily like that, my suggestion is to get 4-stable running, or at least try to get 3.5.1 up and running, but I'm unsure if it's fixed in 3.5.1. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message