Hi Ben,
On 8/31/17 12:04 PM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>> On 28 Aug 2017, at 11:27, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>
>> On 8/28/17 10:25 AM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
On 16 Aug 2017, at 11:02, Ben RUBSON wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2017, at 23:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
>
> On 8/11/17 11:32 AM, Ben RUBSO
> On 28 Aug 2017, at 11:27, Julien Charbon wrote:
>
> On 8/28/17 10:25 AM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>> On 16 Aug 2017, at 11:02, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>>
On 15 Aug 2017, at 23:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 8/11/17 11:32 AM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>> On 08 Aug 2017, at 13:33, Julien Charbo
Hi Ben,
On 8/28/17 10:25 AM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>> On 16 Aug 2017, at 11:02, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 23:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/11/17 11:32 AM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
> On 08 Aug 2017, at 13:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
>
> On 8/8/17 10:31 AM, Hans Petter
> On 16 Aug 2017, at 11:02, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 23:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>
>> On 8/11/17 11:32 AM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
On 08 Aug 2017, at 13:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 8/8/17 10:31 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
> Suggested fix attached.
>>
> On 15 Aug 2017, at 23:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
>
> On 8/11/17 11:32 AM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>> On 08 Aug 2017, at 13:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/8/17 10:31 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Suggested fix attached.
>>>
>>> I agree we your conclusion. Just for the record, m
Hi Ben,
On 8/11/17 11:32 AM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>> On 08 Aug 2017, at 13:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
>>
>> On 8/8/17 10:31 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>>
>>> Suggested fix attached.
>>
>> I agree we your conclusion. Just for the record, more precisely this
>> regression seems to have been int
> On 08 Aug 2017, at 13:33, Julien Charbon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/8/17 10:31 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>
>>
>> Suggested fix attached.
>
> I agree we your conclusion. Just for the record, more precisely this
> regression seems to have been introduced with:
> (...)
> Thus good catch,
On 08/08/17 13:56, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:49:08PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 08/08/17 13:33, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
TW_RUNLOCK(V_tw_lock);
and
if (INP_INFO_TRY_WLOCK(&V_tcbinfo)) {
`inp` can be invalidated, freed and this pointer may be invalid?
If
Hi,
On 8/8/17 10:31 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 08/08/17 10:06, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>> On 08 Aug 2017, at 10:02, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/08/17 10:00, Ben RUBSON wrote:
kgdb) print *twq_2msl.tqh_first
$2 = {
tw_inpcb = 0xf8031c570740,
>>>
>>> print *
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:49:08PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 08/08/17 13:33, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > TW_RUNLOCK(V_tw_lock);
> > and
> > if (INP_INFO_TRY_WLOCK(&V_tcbinfo)) {
> >
> > `inp` can be invalidated, freed and this pointer may be invalid?
>
> If you look one line up th
On 08/08/17 13:33, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
TW_RUNLOCK(V_tw_lock);
and
if (INP_INFO_TRY_WLOCK(&V_tcbinfo)) {
`inp` can be invalidated, freed and this pointer may be invalid?
If you look one line up there is a pcbref ??
--HPS
___
freebsd-stable@free
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:31:33AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Here is the conclusion:
>
> The following code is going in an infinite loop:
>
>
> > for (;;) {
> > TW_RLOCK(V_tw_lock);
> > tw = TAILQ_FIRST(&V_twq_2msl);
> > if (tw =
> On 08 Aug 2017, at 10:31, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
> On 08/08/17 10:06, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>> On 08 Aug 2017, at 10:02, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/08/17 10:00, Ben RUBSON wrote:
kgdb) print *twq_2msl.tqh_first
$2 = {
tw_inpcb = 0xf8031c570740,
>>>
>>>
On 08/08/17 10:06, Ben RUBSON wrote:
On 08 Aug 2017, at 10:02, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 08/08/17 10:00, Ben RUBSON wrote:
kgdb) print *twq_2msl.tqh_first
$2 = {
tw_inpcb = 0xf8031c570740,
print *twq_2msl.tqh_first->tw_inpcb
(kgdb) print *twq_2msl.tqh_first->tw_inpcb
$3 = {
i
14 matches
Mail list logo
