Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 21:07:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, Yuri Pankov <yuri.pankov@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, developers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: reproducible panic with mount_smbfs Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0811032106110.48320@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200811031458.42549.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20081102123100.GA1434@darklight.homeunix.org> <3bbf2fe10811020737g211dfb3fs54b48e4071db2393@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe10811020817g1409a38ep26c1ee8edf075201@mail.gmail.com> <200811031458.42549.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, John Baldwin wrote: >> Yuri, could you please test this fix: >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/netsmb.diff >> >> and report if it works? You could get a KASSERT running but this is >> expected as I want to identify on the callers who passes a malformed >> request and fix it. > > This allows all smb locks to recurse unlike the original code I think. It > may be better if smb_vclist was initialized with LK_RECURSE, but not all the > other smb locks. Also, in smb_co_addchild() I think you should just replace > the existing asserts with appropriate lockmgr_assert() (you could add a > smb_co_assert() to preserve the layering) rather than removing assertions > altogether. My general feeling is that the locking in netsmb needs a bit of cleanup, updating, etc. I'm reluctant to change the underlying primitives (as this patch does) without first clarifying what's going on in the code a layer or two above. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.1.10.0811032106110.48320>