reproducible panic with mount_smbfs
Robert Watson
rwatson at FreeBSD.org
Mon Nov 3 13:07:28 PST 2008
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
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list