Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:01:31 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VIMAGE + PF crash in mbuf destructor Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=jDPrJHXRz8xY9aA-soBx54DjvqkpzdSUvr%2B4hZ9ExkQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAG=rPVd3F2sfwizJuEngxexo0Rby2qwzqpAB4_K-fZXXb8-Rmw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAG=rPVfxFiOVOeSyDP=wBubNQCHK5dqcgBBaJjeS6XXtSZSZqg@mail.gmail.com> <51ED5308.3020008@gmx.com> <CAJ-VmomAC573hrQivfT9Gn_tJn5SkMhM_MK8hUCbtr-7D-NGDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG=rPVd3F2sfwizJuEngxexo0Rby2qwzqpAB4_K-fZXXb8-Rmw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well I'm worried about _other_ stuff causing issues here. So - what's the "right" behaviour? Does vnet/vimage make the assumption that for all the mbuf processing/free operations, the vnet tag/state is set? -adrian On 22 July 2013 11:59, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >> I don't think the default vnet context is the correct behaviour there. >> We'd need to figure out what the vnet context of the mbuf is and set >> that. >> > > What do you think about Marko's suggestion to de-virtualize > V_pf_mtag_z? What would be the down side of that? > > I don't understand enough of the PF code to understand which variables need > to > be virtual and which don't. > > -- > Craig
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=jDPrJHXRz8xY9aA-soBx54DjvqkpzdSUvr%2B4hZ9ExkQ>