On Friday 04 August 2006 03:03, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:58:00PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Thursday 03 August 2006 14:08, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:11:11AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote: > > > > Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > > > yar 2006-08-03 09:59:09 UTC > > > > > > > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > > > > > > > Modified files: > > > > > sys/net if_vlan.c > > > > > Log: > > > > > Should vlan_input() ever be called with ifp pointing to a non-Ethernet > > > > > interface, do not just assign -1 to tag because it breaks the logic of > > > > > the code to follow. The better way is to handle this case as an > > unsupported > > > > > protocol and return unless INVARIANTS is in effect and we can panic. > > > > > Panic is good there because the scenario can happen only because of a > > > > > coding error elsewhere. > > > > > > > > > > We also should show the interface name in the panic message for easier > > > > > debugging of the problem, should it ever emerge. > > > > > > > > Introducing a panic in a place where you can trivially recover is bad > > > > regardless of why you got there. Many people run production systems > > > > with INVARIANTS turned on. Is it now possible to send a "packet of > > > > death" by exploiting this code path? > > > > > > No nastygram can ever achieve this; only FreeBSD commiters possess > > > the ability to :-) > > > > > > The panic can never be reached unless one manages to attach a vlan > > > interface to a non-Ethernet physical interface in advance, which > > > is totally prohibited by the code at the beginning of vlan_config(); > > > and vlan_config() is the only way to attach a vlan interface to a > > > physical interface. > > > > > > I.e., it will take a developer breaking the logic in /sys/net to > > > make the code path expoloitable. > > > > > > OTOH, you are right that we can at least attempt to recover from > > > the situation. Perhaps it's time to introduce a common macro or > > > function that emits a message on the console and then just calls > > > kdb_backtrace() instead of dumping core and halting the system? > > > So users will be able to post the stack traces to the lists and > > > thus help to spot the possible bugs w/o having to go through panics. > > > I'm unsure if sticking raw kdb_backtrace() calls in such places > > > is a good idea, so I'm suggesting a wrapper function or macro. > > > It is to be used in "can absolutely never happen" cases that are > > > not fatal, like the one under discussion. > > > > kdb_backtrace() is the wrapper function around other internals. :) > > Of course, we can always grep /sys for its usage later ;-) > > Just noticed that many calls to kdb_backtrace() are under "#ifdef > KDB" while subr_kdb.c is marked as standard in /sys/conf/files and > the function itself is always available (yet can do nothing.) > > Should calls to kdb_backtrace() be put under "#ifdef KDB"? If they > should, it can justify introducing the combined printf+trace function.
If kdb_backtrace() is always present, then the calls probably shouldn't be under the #ifdef. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
