> So is the panic I hit the same as 6794035 ? (at least the stack trace > is different) should I update the bug with the stack trace I hit ? or > that would be confusing ? > > There seems to be a difference between the nic event callbacks and > incoming packet callbacks. In the nic event callback case, we only > record a stack index in the packet and do a netstack lookup in > ipnet_nicevent_task(). So at least the netstack_t itself can't vaporize > though the netstack_ipnet field could become NULL. But in the case of > incoming packets, ipobs_hook() actually embeds a netstack_t pointer in > the mblk (but no refhold on the netstack). So we can have another type > of panic where the netstack itself could have vaporized and then > ipnet_dispatch() attempts to reference it ??
Hmm, you're right, this is really a distinct issue in that we could probably fix this one by destroying ipnet_taskq before unregistering the netstack, whereas that will not suffice for 6794035. -- meem
