---- On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:45:24 -0700 Konstantin Belousov
<kostik...@gmail.com> wrote ----
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:39:42AM -0700, Matthew Macy wrote:
> > You can use dwarf4 if you use GDB from ports
> How would it help ?
The following statement to a native speaker would imply that GDB is the
problem: "There is not much gdb info here; I'll try to rebuild kgdb."
If in fact %rip has been smashed that's a bit like saying "the light doesn't
show anything on the table, I'll replace the light bulb" - when in fact there
isn't anything on the table.
> Problem for kgdb is that %rip is zero, due to function pointer being set
> to NULL in a destroyed knlist. Either version of kgdb would not find
> neither code nor unwind annotations for zero address.
> But the issue is understood and
Yes. Since the initial e-mail.
> we are working on the version of fix.
I'm glad you're on it.
> ---- On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 04:50:00 -0700 Peter Holm<pe...@holm.cc> wrote
> ----On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:11:43AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:26:14PM -0500, Eric Badger wrote: > > I believe
> they all have more or less the same cause. The crashes occur > > because we
> acquire a knlist lock via the KN_LIST_LOCK macro, but when we > > call
> KN_LIST_UNLOCK, the knote???s knlist reference (kn->kn_knlist) has > > been
> cleared by another thread. Thus we are unable to unlock the > > previously
> acquired lock and hold it until something causes us to crash > > (such as
> the witness code noticing that we???re returning to userland with > > the
> lock still held). > ... > > I believe there???s also a small window where
> the KN_LIST_LOCK macro > > checks kn->kn_knlist and finds it to be
> non-NULL, but by the time it > > actually dereferences it, it has become
> NULL. This would produce the > > ???page fault while in kernel mode???
> crash. > > > > If someone fami
liar with this code sees an obvious fix, I???ll be happy to > > test it.
Otherwise, I???d appreciate any advice on fixing this. My first > > thought is
that a ???struct knote??? ought to have its own mutex for > > controlling
access to the flag fields and ideally the ???kn_knlist??? field. > > I.e., you
would first acquire a knote???s lock and then the knlist lock, > > thus
ensuring that no one could clear the kn_knlist variable while you > > hold the
knlist lock. The knlist lock, however, usually comes from > > whichever event
producing entity the knote tracks, so getting lock > > ordering right between
the per-knote mutex and this other lock seems > > potentially hard. (Sometimes
we call into functions in kern_event.c with > > the knlist lock already held,
having been acquired in code outside of > > kern_event.c. Consider, for
example, calling KNOTE_LOCKED from > > kern_exit.c; the PROC_LOCK macro has
already been used to acquire the > > process lock, also serving
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"