Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:33:40 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Attention pf/ipfw users with uid/gid/jail rules (Re: Reminder: NET_NEEDS_GIANT, debug.mpsafenet going away in 7.0) Message-ID: <20070720213241.N83919@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <46A100C2.1030606@elischer.org> References: <20070717131518.G1177@fledge.watson.org> <200707172342.39082.max@love2party.net> <20070720111539.U1096@fledge.watson.org> <46A100C2.1030606@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Julian Elischer wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: >> >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Max Laier wrote: >> >> So far I have had 0 (zero) reports of problems since this thread began. >> Could people using uid/gid/jail rules with ipfw or pf on 7.x *please* try >> running their firewalls without debug.mpsafenet -- ignore the witness >> warnings and/or disable witness, and let us know if you experience >> deadlocks. We're reaching the very end of the merge cycle for 7.0, and I >> would really like to remove the Giant crutches (now effectively unused) >> from the network stack so it's not part of the ABI/API, the code is >> simplified and cleaned up, etc. > > does "problem" include a LOR message, or only a deadlock? I've seen plenty > of the first, but not the second. Deadlocks. The LOR is expected, but actually a false positive with respect to deadlock potential, we now believe. To be specific: there is a cycle, but since the cycling conditions always involve read acquisition, they shouldn't lead to a wait cycle. So what we're looking for here is evidence of something more than the WITNESS warning. 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?20070720213241.N83919>