Fabian Keil wrote:
> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:09:17PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > > Thanks. I'm currently testing the patch on three systems but it may take
> > > a while ...
> > >
> >
> > Better
On 18 Dec, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:33:46PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
>> On 17 Dec, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:48:08AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
>> >> On 17 Dec, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:08:02AM -0800, Don Lewis
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:36:44AM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> Fabian Keil wrote:
>
> > Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:09:17PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > > > Thanks. I'm currently testing the patch on
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:33:46PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 17 Dec, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:48:08AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> >> On 17 Dec, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:08:02AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> >> >> I used to have a patch
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 09:44:10AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 18 Dec, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:33:46PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> >> On 17 Dec, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:48:08AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> >> >> On 17 Dec, Konstantin Belousov
On 18 Dec, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 09:44:10AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
>> On 18 Dec, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:33:46PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
>> >> On 17 Dec, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:48:08AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
On 17 Dec, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:08:02AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
>> I used to have a patch the deferred linking the new process into
>> proctree/allproc until it was fully formed. The motivation was to get
>> rid of all of the PRS_NEW stuff scattered around the
On 17 Dec, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:48:08AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
>> On 17 Dec, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:08:02AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
>> >> I used to have a patch the deferred linking the new process into
>> >> proctree/allproc until
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:08:02AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> I used to have a patch the deferred linking the new process into
> proctree/allproc until it was fully formed. The motivation was to get
> rid of all of the PRS_NEW stuff scattered around the source.
> Unfortunately the patch bit-rotted
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:48:08AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 17 Dec, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:08:02AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> >> I used to have a patch the deferred linking the new process into
> >> proctree/allproc until it was fully formed. The motivation
On 16 Dec, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:21:16PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
>> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> > It is the values of *p and *(p->p_pgrp) that are needed, from the frame 8.
>>
>> Unfortunately it's not available and apparently I removed
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:09:17PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > Thanks. I'm currently testing the patch on three systems but it may take a
> > while ...
> >
>
> Better use mjg' patch with the small adjustment. I put it below.
Will do.
Oliver Pinter wrote:
> Is this with latest 11-CURRENT or 10-STABLE?
>
> Or contains the ad578c311ef commit?
The panic is from a system based on 11-CURRENT r290926.
Is ad578c311ef a HardenedBSD commit? It doesn't seem to
exist in
Yes, it's a HardenedBSD commit. Currently only a workaround, because I have
now lesser time for the real fix in this month.
Are you running on ZFS?
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Fabian Keil
wrote:
> Oliver Pinter >
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:42:38PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > I've seen the following panic a couple of times in the last three
> > months, usually while poudriere was running and with sh being the
> > current process.
> >
> > This one is
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:21:16PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > It is the values of *p and *(p->p_pgrp) that are needed, from the frame 8.
>
> Unfortunately it's not available and apparently I removed the attempts
> to get it from the previous
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:42:38PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> I've seen the following panic a couple of times in the last three
> months, usually while poudriere was running and with sh being the
> current process.
>
> This one is from a system based on r290926 running with
> kern.randompid=9001
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:10:00PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:21:16PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > It is the values of *p and *(p->p_pgrp) that are needed, from the frame 8.
> >
> > Unfortunately it's not
Hi!
Is this with latest 11-CURRENT or 10-STABLE?
Or contains the ad578c311ef commit?
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Shawn Webb
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:42:38PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > I've seen the following panic a couple of times in the last
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 02:54:27PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> While I agree with analysis the patch does not look right. Since the
> struct is only assigned and all locks get dropped, there is nothing
> preventing another thread from the forking process to change the process
> group.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:09:17PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> Thanks. I'm currently testing the patch on three systems but it may take a
> while ...
>
Better use mjg' patch with the small adjustment. I put it below.
diff --git a/sys/kern/kern_proc.c b/sys/kern/kern_proc.c
index
Oliver Pinter wrote:
> Yes, it's a HardenedBSD commit. Currently only a workaround, because I have
> now lesser time for the real fix in this month.
>
> Are you running on ZFS?
Yes.
Fabian
pgpuOBy_BlV8u.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:21:16PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > It is the values of *p and *(p->p_pgrp) that are needed, from the frame
> > > 8.
> >
> > Unfortunately it's not
I've seen the following panic a couple of times in the last three
months, usually while poudriere was running and with sh being the
current process.
This one is from a system based on r290926 running with
kern.randompid=9001 and forking frequently (>1000 forks/second)
due to poudriere and
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:42:38PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> I've seen the following panic a couple of times in the last three
> months, usually while poudriere was running and with sh being the
> current process.
>
> This one is from a system based on r290926 running with
> kern.randompid=9001
25 matches
Mail list logo