Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 06:32:04 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, current@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: bwrite: buffer is not busy??? Message-ID: <20020318143204.GA688@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <xzp4rjep7m5.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <20020317124958.A34008@xor.obsecurity.org> <xzpadt6r1xr.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020318061739.GB894@elvis.mu.org> <xzpvgbupdqa.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020318071623.GD894@elvis.mu.org> <20020318010245.A48956@xor.obsecurity.org> <xzp4rjep7m5.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> [020318 01:07] wrote: > Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes: > > With the corrected version of that patch (and a patch from Tor to fix > > VM deadlocks in green's commit) I got this panic. > > ...which is completely uninteresting, actually, except as proof that > the patch (and my initial analysis) is incorrect. With the patch > applied, tail(1) will *always* cause this panic; it is a direct and > inevitable consequence of the patch clearing p->p_fd before calling > closef(). I think you're right, I'm pretty sure the fix is basically moving the p->p_fd = NULL to after the closef will fix things, but to get it right you need to lock the FILEDESC properly, I'll have another patch later today. Sorry for taking so long to look at this. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020318143204.GA688>