Scott Rotondo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Did you run a test with the original filesystem, or what do you like to
> > tell us
> > here?
>
> I didn't test anything. I was just pointing out, based on simple
> examination of the source code, that line 944 is sure to panic if fsp
> contains ran
to make this an end, the fix (btw, as mentioned by ScottR) has been putbacked 2
days ago under 6715049
driven by JuergenKeil and Dan.McDonald.
---
frankB
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Scott Rotondo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>>
>>> Does it help to intialize the pointers to NULL?
>>>
>> Sure. This code
>>
>> 943 if (fsp)
>> 944 kmem_free(fsp, sizeof (*fsp));
>> 945 if (svp)
>> 946
Scott Rotondo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Juergen Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm, in usr/src/uts/common/fs/hsfs/hsfs_vfsops.c function hs_mountfs(),
> >> whenever we use one of the first three |goto cleanup|, the local variables
> >> |svp| and |jvp| are
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Juergen Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, in usr/src/uts/common/fs/hsfs/hsfs_vfsops.c function hs_mountfs(),
>> whenever we use one of the first three |goto cleanup|, the local variables
>> |svp| and |jvp| are uninitialized. That should corrupt the kernel heap
>>
Juergen Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hmm, in usr/src/uts/common/fs/hsfs/hsfs_vfsops.c function hs_mountfs(),
> whenever we use one of the first three |goto cleanup|, the local variables
> |svp| and |jvp| are uninitialized. That should corrupt the kernel heap
> when we kmem_free() with an
I filed a bug at http://bugs.opensolaris.org/;
Bug-ID is not yet known.
Fix is obvious:
diff --git a/usr/src/uts/common/fs/hsfs/hsfs_vfsops.c
b/usr/src/uts/common/fs/hsfs/hsfs_vfsops.c
--- a/usr/src/uts/common/fs/hsfs/hsfs_vfsops.c
+++ b/usr/src/uts/common/fs/hsfs/hsfs_vfsops.c
@@ -596,8 +596,8
Hmm, in usr/src/uts/common/fs/hsfs/hsfs_vfsops.c function hs_mountfs(),
whenever we use one of the first three |goto cleanup|, the local variables
|svp| and |jvp| are uninitialized. That should corrupt the kernel heap
when we kmem_free() with an unitialized stack lock pointer in the
cleanup sect
Frank Hofmann wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Juergen Keil wrote:
>
> > For that reason I did suggest to Kyle to try to reproduce this hsfs mount
> > panic with kmem heap checking enabled.
> >
> > Add the following line to /etc/system, reboot, retry to reproduce the hsfs
> > mount panic:
> >
> >
Robert William Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi Kyle,
> >
> > given that what happens looks ever-so-slightly different each time, a
> > hardware glitch could be possible; to exclude this, would you happen to
> > know whether these panics occurred before build
Juergen Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > kmem_alloc(0, flag) always returns NULL. kmem_free(NULL, 0)
> > is legal.
> >
> > That's manpage - consider it a spec ...
>
> Well, it says kmem_free with a ptr == NULL and size == 0 is legal;
> but what about ptr == NULL and size > 0?
We
Frank Hofmann wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Juergen Keil wrote:
>
> > IIRC a bug like ``kmem_free(NULL, size)'' somewhere in the kernel can have
the
> > effect that a subsequent ``kmem_alloc(size, KM_SLEEP)'' somewhere else in
the
> > kernel will return with a NULL pointer! (Assuming you run
Robert William Fuller wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi Kyle,
> >
> > given that what happens looks ever-so-slightly different each time, a
> > hardware glitch could be possible; to exclude this, would you happen to
> > know whether these panics occurred before build 78 as well ? If they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Kyle,
>
> given that what happens looks ever-so-slightly different each time, a
> hardware glitch could be possible; to exclude this, would you happen to
> know whether these panics occurred before build 78 as well ? If they occur
> if you use the b77 hsfs module o
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Juergen Keil wrote:
> Robert William Fuller wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Hi Kyle,
>>>
>>> given that what happens looks ever-so-slightly different each time, a
>>> hardware glitch could be possible; to exclude this, would you happen to
>>> know whether these panics
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Robert William Fuller wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hi Kyle,
>>
>> given that what happens looks ever-so-slightly different each time, a
>> hardware glitch could be possible; to exclude this, would you happen to
>> know whether these panics occurred before build 78
16 matches
Mail list logo
