On 4 September 2016 at 17:43, Martin Pieuchot <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks to awolk@ hacking on USB wireless we found a lot of new races in > the network stack. > > Passing and ``ifp'' pointer to a task is *not* safe. If the task > sleeps, then another thread my start executing if_detach() freeing the > memory associated to ``ifp''. And task do sleep, that's why we use > them in the first place. > > So we should always pass and ifp index like I did with the > if_input_process() task. Diff attached fix awolk@'s first panic. > > ok? >
Sure, OK mikeb
