On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Damn, thats bad, and this is with what installed exactly, RC1, 2? I'll have
> someone in validation install to see if we can repro this tomorrow, let me
> know what it is asap.
>
This is RELENG_8_1 as of date=2010.06.25.00.00.00 It's pfSense 2.
Damn, thats bad, and this is with what installed exactly, RC1, 2? I'll have
someone in validation install to see if we can repro this tomorrow, let me
know what it is asap.
Jack
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> > O
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Chris Buechler wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>> > Am confused, does not the code in 8.1 have that fix, looked to me like it
>> > did?
>> >
>>
>> Maybe I'm confused, but
Krishna wrote:
Hi,
I am implementing a user space program to create and assign IPv6 address
to a linux host.
I am able to create and assign the IP successfully. But, if i am
assigning the duplicate address,
still the address gets assigned. I understand the kernel is handling the
DAD and repor
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > Am confused, does not the code in 8.1 have that fix, looked to me like it
> > did?
> >
>
> Maybe I'm confused, but it looks like RELENG_8_1 has the IGB_DBA_ALIGN
> rather than 1
There is one case in igb_dma_malloc() where its still IGB_DBA_ALIGN, but the
cases where its allocating TX and RX bufs the alignment is 1, that code is
the
same in 8.1, or head as far as I can see.
Jack
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jac
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Am confused, does not the code in 8.1 have that fix, looked to me like it
> did?
>
Maybe I'm confused, but it looks like RELENG_8_1 has the IGB_DBA_ALIGN
rather than 1.
-IGB_DBA_ALIGN, 0,/* alignment, bounds */
+
Am confused, does not the code in 8.1 have that fix, looked to me like it
did?
Jack
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
> I'm seeing what appears to be the problem described in this thread with the
> latest RELENG_8_1, reportedly fixed by this diff.
>
> http://lists.freebsd.o
I'm seeing what appears to be the problem described in this thread with
the latest RELENG_8_1, reportedly fixed by this diff.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-November/013258.html
Except that fix was reverted in r206211.
http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/releng/8.1/sys/de
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:04:31PM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:03:18AM +0300, Eugene Perevyazko wrote:
> > I have this problem on 7.2-S for pretty long time. But as I sendfile() very
> > small file (several hundred bytes) from flash I was blaming faulty flash
> > stick
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:03:18AM +0300, Eugene Perevyazko wrote:
> I have this problem on 7.2-S for pretty long time. But as I sendfile() very
> small file (several hundred bytes) from flash I was blaming faulty flash
> stick.
> I've even made a crontab entry to replace corrupted file.
> So the
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Krishna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am implementing a user space program to create and assign IPv6 address to
> a linux host.
> I am able to create and assign the IP successfully. But, if i am assigning
> the duplicate address,
> still the address gets assigned. I understand
on 08/07/2010 14:47 Kostik Belousov said the following:
> - n->m_flags |= M_EXT;
> + n->m_flags |= M_EXT | m->m_flags;
BTW, I think that M_EXT must already be in m->m_flags if mb_dupcl() is called.
--
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org ma
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:58:50PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 08.07.2010 13:47, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:34:28PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >>On 08.07.2010 11:42, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:40:05AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>>
On 08.07.2010 13:47, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:34:28PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 08.07.2010 11:42, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:40:05AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 08/07/2010 11:29 Kostik Belousov said the following:
Right, the patch maps
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:34:28PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 08.07.2010 11:42, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:40:05AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>on 08/07/2010 11:29 Kostik Belousov said the following:
> >>>Right, the patch maps the page in sf buffer read-only (on
On 08.07.2010 11:42, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:40:05AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 08/07/2010 11:29 Kostik Belousov said the following:
Right, the patch maps the page in sf buffer read-only (on i386 only).
But note the parallel posting with m_cat() change. It is still
on 08/07/2010 12:40 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> on 08/07/2010 11:40 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>> on 08/07/2010 11:29 Kostik Belousov said the following:
>>> Right, the patch maps the page in sf buffer read-only (on i386 only).
>>> But note the parallel posting with m_cat() change. It
on 08/07/2010 11:40 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> on 08/07/2010 11:29 Kostik Belousov said the following:
>> Right, the patch maps the page in sf buffer read-only (on i386 only).
>> But note the parallel posting with m_cat() change. It is still not enough,
>> and I am not set up for the real n
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:40:05AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 08/07/2010 11:29 Kostik Belousov said the following:
> > Right, the patch maps the page in sf buffer read-only (on i386 only).
> > But note the parallel posting with m_cat() change. It is still not enough,
> > and I am not set up fo
on 08/07/2010 11:29 Kostik Belousov said the following:
> Right, the patch maps the page in sf buffer read-only (on i386 only).
> But note the parallel posting with m_cat() change. It is still not enough,
> and I am not set up for the real network testing ATM.
Could you also try to experiment with
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:19:13AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 08/07/2010 11:11 Andre Oppermann said the following:
> >
> > Can you check whether your patch fixes the bug when you go over a real
> > network?
>
> As I understand the patch is not supposed to fix the bug, it's supposed to
> cat
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:51:21AM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> Not an expert by any measure but the following looks suspicious:
> m_copy/m_copym calls mb_dupcl for M_EXT case and M_RDONLY is _not_ checked nor
> preserved in that case.
> So we may get a writable M_EXT mbuf pointing to sf_buf wra
on 08/07/2010 11:11 Andre Oppermann said the following:
>
> Can you check whether your patch fixes the bug when you go over a real
> network?
As I understand the patch is not supposed to fix the bug, it's supposed to catch
it early. I.e. get panic instead of data corruption.
--
Andriy Gapon
__
On 07.07.2010 22:50, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:24:41AM -0700, Ming Fu wrote:
Hi,
I was trying to use sendfile and hit with problem very similar to the
123095 and 131602.
It seems that when the file is large enough (in megs), the file can be
corrupted even if it is open
Darren Pilgrim wrote
in <4c3565e8.5040...@bitfreak.org>:
fr> I can't find any hint of support for it. Did I miss something? If
fr> not, is there any work adding support for 6RD (RFC5569)?
A patch for 8.x is available:
http://bougaidenpa.org/masakazu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/freebsd8-6
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:24:41AM -0700, Ming Fu wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I was trying to use sendfile and hit with problem very similar to the
> 123095 and 131602.
> It seems that when the file is large enough (in megs), the file can be
> corrupted even if it is open read-only and exist on disk as r
Not an expert by any measure but the following looks suspicious:
m_copy/m_copym calls mb_dupcl for M_EXT case and M_RDONLY is _not_ checked nor
preserved in that case.
So we may get a writable M_EXT mbuf pointing to sf_buf wrapping a page of a
file.
But I am not sure if/how mbufs are re-used and
28 matches
Mail list logo
