Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:11:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch> To: Gavin Atkinson <gavin.atkinson@ury.york.ac.uk> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Patrick Guelat <patg@imp.ch>, "Wojciech A. Koszek" <wkoszek@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Crash with FreeBSD 6.1 STABLE of today Message-ID: <20060623181014.S14714@godot.imp.ch> In-Reply-To: <1151078632.62769.30.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> References: <20060621202508.S17514@godot.imp.ch> <20060621193941.Y8526@fledge.watson.org> <20060622205806.GA6542@FreeBSD.czest.pl> <20060622223630.V17514@godot.imp.ch> <1151056731.62769.2.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <20060623133915.S14714@godot.imp.ch> <1151078632.62769.30.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > I'm not sure if t_session is supposed to be protected by the proctree Correct. > lock though. With an initial glance of the code, it would seem odd to > be protected by the proctree lock, although I can't see any other locks > Someone with more knowledge of this code will probably know the answer > to this. > > There does seem to be a worrying comment above tty_close (which is the > only place that t_session seems to be set to NULL): > > * XXX our caller should have done `spltty(); l_close(); tty_close();' > * and l_close() should have flushed, but we repeat the spltty() and > * the flush in case there are buggy callers. > > As I understand it, spltty() is now a no-op. Does this mean that this > code is now essentially running without any locks that were used to > serialise changes to struct tty in days gone by? Or is the whole tty > subsystem still running under Giant? I thought this too. Maybe Robert knows more. Martin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060623181014.S14714>