Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To:        Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>
Cc:        dillon@apollo.backplane.com, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Bug in wakeup() (stable and current) ?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206231840270.44896-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <200206232158.g5NLw9c49030@prism.flugsvamp.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Jonathan Lemon wrote:

> In article <local.mail.freebsd-hackers/200206232032.g5NKWVZW063483@apollo.backplane.com> you write:
> >:I'm pretty sure you only need to 'goto restart' if you call into
> >:maybe_resched() as someone else may have manipulated the queues.
> >:
> >:The 'restart' label is only in there for restarting in case one of
> >:the functions called may change the lists, if we restart _every_
> >:time we'll traverse the same procs where p->p_wchan != ident over
> >:and over needlessly.
> >:
> >:-Alfred
> >
> >    Look at the code carefully.  It's *removing* the element from the list,
> >    the conditionally restarting rather then removing the element from the
> >    list and unconditionally restarting.  The only reason it works at all
> >    is because sys/queue.h does not clear out the pointers in the node 
> >    that was just removed.  The code is just plain wrong, though, because
> >    the queue mechanisms make no such (documented) guarentee.
> 
> Looks like the original damage happened in r1.21, where the temporary
> variable (used to hold the next item on the list) was replaced by a
> dereference through the pointer of the item that was just removed.  
> 
> The code works simply because it relies TAILQ_REMOVE() not changing
> the tqe_next pointer.  I suppose that this should either be documented,
> or the loop changed back to use a temp variable:
> 
> 	for (td = TAILQ_FIRST(qp); td != NULL; td = tdq) {
> 		tdq = TAILQ_NEXT(td, td_slpq);
> 		...
> 	}



I just added debug code in the TAILQ code that sets the forward pointor
to -1. Since Matt had this it's possible that this is what hit him?

I do this to stop people accessingthings that they shouldn't be counting
on..



> 
> -- 
> Jonathan
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0206231840270.44896-100000>